Pro-Life Info:  (1 views) Subscribe   
  From:  David (DavidABrown)    5/2/2002 4:22 pm  
To:  ALL   (1 of 9)  
 
  382.1  
 
Subject:   Pro-Abortion PAC Emily's List Making a Name for Itself
Source:   Washington Post; April 21, 2002

Pro-Abortion PAC Emily's List Making a Name for Itself

Washington, DC -- In abortion politics there is an emerging political
juggernaut: EMILY's List. The pro-abortion political action committee is
quickly becoming one of the biggest payers financially in Congressional
politics.

"We are huge," declared Ellen R. Malcolm, president and founder of the
group, which backs pro-abortion-rights Democrats. "We are the biggest
fundraiser of 'hard money' other than the parties in the country."

EMILY's List doesn't just give money to candidates. It mobilizes 68,000
supporters to send individual checks; it does more polling than the
Democratic National Committee; it runs TV ads for and against candidates;
it staffs campaigns; it provides strategic advice.

Already a major player, EMILY's List will only gain in stature with the
enactment of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act. While the
national parties are struggling to figure out how to survive without "soft
money" -- large donations often exceeding $100,000 from corporations,
unions and individuals -- EMILY's List is free to continue to raise both
hard and soft money, and to pursue its true specialty: the bundling of
small contributions into large packets of cash for favored candidates.

"We are the essence of campaign finance reform," Malcolm recently told
supporters. The new legislation "does absolutely nothing to change the way
we support our candidates. . . . It actually makes us even more powerful."

A candidate must meet three qualifications to be considered for an EMILY's
List endorsement: back abortion , including the right to late-term
abortions; be a Democrat; and, in primary elections, be a woman.

EMILY's List is the counterpart to political action committees on the
pro-life side such as the National Right to Life PAC and the Susan B.
Anthony List. However, EMILY's List has quickly risen to the top of the
list of PAC spending.

The NRA was the top political action committee fundraiser in the 1999-2000
election cycle, at $17.9 million. Emily's List was second, at $14.6
million, although Malcolm pointed out that her group raised an additional
$3.3 million for Democratic parties in 13 battleground states, making them
virtually equal.

The Democratic Party views EMILY's List as crucial in general elections.
In 2000, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee gave the group
$1.3 million in soft money. The ability of EMILY's List to mobilize
women's voters has been viewed by some Democratic activists as essential
to victory in close contests.

In recent months, however, as EMILY's List has flexed its muscles in
several Democratic primaries, its role has become increasingly
controversial. The group angered many Clinton loyalists when it backed
pro-abortion ex-state representative Nancy Kaszak (D) against former White
House aide Rahm Emanuel in a Chicago area congressional primary. Emanuel
supports abortion, but EMILY's List spent over $400,000 on ads attacking
him for his support of NAFTA.

"Washington insider Rahm Emanuel says he fights for working people," the
ads declared. "But Emanuel led the fight for the NAFTA trade agreement,
which cost Illinois more than 11,000 jobs."

Despite it's seemingly non-germane focus on NAFTA, Malcolm defended the
ad, contending that in the group's 17-year history, "this is not anything
new." She said EMILY's List endorsed then-Rep. Barbara A. Mikulski in her
1986 senatorial primary against then-Rep. Michael Barnes (D), who had much
of the party's establishment backing.

Emanuel defeated Kaszak, and now EMILY's List is in an uphill fight in
another primary against an abortion advocate -- this time pro-abortion
Rep. Nancy Rivers (D-MI) versus pro-abortion Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) in a
contest pitting two incumbents together because of redistricting in
Michigan.

Dingell, is a legendary Democratic icon and the former chairman and now
ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Dingell has
for the past two decades been viewed as one of the most powerful
Democratic figures in Washington. He has always had strong support from
his working-class Dearborn district.

Now, portions of Dingell's district have been merged with Rivers's,
including the precincts of Ann Arbor, where abortion is strongly backed by
Democratic primary voters. The district favors Dingell, but EMILY's List
contends that its polling -- which gives Dingell a 52 to 44 advantage over
Rivers -- also shows him vulnerable to attacks on abortion.

"Voters in this district are pro-choice," Diane Feldman, the pollster
wrote, contending that voters "move dramatically toward Rivers on
[abortion]." According to Feldman, voters sided with Rivers over Dingell
66 to 28.

For pro-life advocates, it's nice to see EMILY's List taking on their own
and spending money simply to simply replace one pro-abortion member of
Congress with another. However, not all contests EMILY's List enters will
feature supporters of abortion dueling each other. Pro-life advocates must
contribute to pro-life political action committies to help the pro-life
side remain competetive politically.

For additional information on the Susan B. Anthony List, see
http://www.sba-list.org

--
Please consider making a donation to help the work of the Pro-Life
Infonet. You can send a donation to:  Women and Children First, PO Box
4433, Helena, MT 59604-4433. We appreciate your support.

--------------------
From:  The Pro-Life Infonet infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt www.prolifeinfo.org



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


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    5/2/2002 4:43 pm  
To:  ALL   (2 of 9)  
 
  382.2 in reply to 382.1  
 
Subject:   NARAL to Salute Bill Clinton for Advancing Abortion
Source:   Cybercast News Service; April 22, 2002

NARAL to Salute Bill Clinton for Advancing Abortion

Washington, DC -- The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action
League paid tribute to former President Clinton Monday at a luncheon in
New York City.

"Former President Clinton was the nation's most aggressive advocate for a
woman's right to choose since the Roe decision," said Bob Jaffe, spokesman
for New York NARAL.

"He understood the importance of making sure that access to legal and safe
abortion was protected while also investing resources and combating high
rates of unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease, which is
now at epidemic levels."

Clinton, whom NARAL hails as a "pro-choice champion," did much during his
presidency to advance abortion.

During his first year in office, Clinton repealed the Mexico City Policy,
originally put in place by the Reagan and Bush administrations to prohibit
taxpayer funding of organziations that promote or perform abortions in
other countries. He also lifted the ban on the dangerous abortion drug
RU-486.

Later, he nominated two pro-abortion justices to the U.S. Supreme Court:
Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg and vetoed legislation that would
have banned partial birth abortions.

Laurie Hogans, director of the New York Right to Life committee, said with
Clinton's record, it is only fitting that he be honored by NARAL.

"The former president, and I say that with glee, pretended that he wanted
abortion to be rare," Hougens said. "Meanwhile, he was so extreme, that he
vetoed a ban on the horrible partial-birth abortion. Certainly he was
NARAL's boy."

"That person was disgrace to the White House, to the country, and to the
American people," she said. "It is fitting that a diabolical organization
such as NARAL would honor him."

Also scheduled to speak at the luncheon is former First Lady and current
New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, actor Brad Whitford from NBC's
"The West Wing", NARAL President Kate Michelman and N.Y. NARAL Executive
Director Kelli Conlin.

--
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)    5/2/2002 4:45 pm  
To:  ALL   (3 of 9)  
 
  382.3 in reply to 382.1  
 
Subject:  Supreme Court To Hear NOW v. Scheidler Abortion Protest Appeal
Source:   Pro-Life Action League; April 24, 2002

Supreme Court To Hear NOW v. Scheidler Abortion Protest Appeal

Washington, DC -- On Monday, April 22 the U. S. Supreme Court said it will
review the NOW v. Scheidler RICO judgment of $258,000 and the nationwide
injunction awarded in favor of the NOW and the abortion industry in
August, 1999. The judgment and decree were entered in U.S. district court
in Chicago after an 8-week trial in 1998.

The trial followed a prior 1994 Supreme Court ruling that allowed use of
the federal racketeering laws against political protesters who lacked an
economic motive.  NOW represented its women members and all other U.S.
women whose access to abortion had been interfered with.  Abortion
providers in Milwaukee and Delaware represented nearly all U.S. clinics. A
three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago affirmed the
judgment last October.

"We are cautiously elated that the Court finds this case worthy of
review," said Joseph M. Scheidler, National Director of the Pro-Life
Action League, one of the named defendants.  Others sued included the
League, Andrew Schonberg, Timothy Murphy, & Operation Rescue.

The lower courts held defendants liable as racketeers answerable for a
nationwide, 12-year pattern of "predicate crimes."  These crimes largely
consisted of acts of civil disobedience, such as sit-ins or blockades at
abortion clinics.  These acts were held to constitute the federal felony
crime of extortion, defined as "obtaining property" by means of "actual or
threatened force, violence, or fear."

"Our movement is non-violent," said Scheidler. "We believe that abortion
inflicts deadly violence on infants and scars their mothers.  No pro-life
protester sought or obtained any property.  On the contrary, they appeal
to conscience, urging mothers to spare the lives of infants and providers
to give up their grisly trade.  The verdict reflects our non-violence.
Jurors had blamed either the defendants or their unnamed 'associates' for
only four acts or threats of violence anywhere in the U.S. over a 12 year
period."

The real target was the use of Gandhi an tactics of non-violent civil
disobedience and what Dr. Martin Luther King called peaceable, non-violent
direct action - involving peaceful sit-ins at clinic sites. This was
condemned as "extortion," and a "pattern" of such acts was held to be
"racketeering."  The crime of federal extortion had to be redefined as any
"interference with rights" of business providers or patrons. "Fear"
included loss of business.

The Supreme Court rebuffed NOW's objections to the filing of friend of the
court briefs supporting the appeal by the Seamless Garment Network, Dr.
King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference, People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals, Sojourners, Pox Christi USA, Not Dead Yet, Concerned
Women for America, Feminists for Life of New York, Citizens United for
Alternatives to the Death Penalty, the Venues Support Committee, Voices in
the Wilderness, the Kerrigan brothers, Liz McAlister, Fr. Roy Bourgeois,
Plowshares, Prof. Howard Sinn, and actor-activist Martin Sheen.

An hour is set aside for oral argument to be fixed in the October Term,
2002.

--
Encourage a pro-life friend to sin up for the Pro-Life Infonet. Anyone can
sign up at
http://www.roevwade.org/roeform.html



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


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    5/2/2002 4:47 pm  
To:  ALL   (4 of 9)  
 
  382.4 in reply to 382.1  
 
Subject:   New Study Shows Abortion Increases Depression Risks
Source:   Elliot Institute; April 24, 2002

New Study Shows Abortion Increases Depression Risks

Springfield, IL -- After she was raped by a member of her school's
football team, high school cheerleader Lorraine Williams thought abortion
was her best -- even her only -- choice. Only decades later did she
realize how much the abortion had emotionally affected her.

''I actually never tied the abortion to the chronic depression I had,''
Williams said. ''To tell you the truth, it was almost 35 years
later...that I began to talk about it and this literally came up. I had no
idea that I had buried it so deep.''

Williams is not alone. A study recently published in the prestigious
British Medical Journal examined a national sample of 1,086 American women
who had a history of unintended first pregnancies. Depression scores
revealed that women who had abortions had significantly higher risk of
clinical depression compared to women who delivered unintended
pregnancies.

''These findings are consistent with other research linking abortion to
higher subsequent rates of suicide, substance abuse, and other
psychological reactions,'' said lead researcher Dr. David Reardon,
director of the Elliot Institute, which undertook the study. ''What makes
this study especially important, however, is that it looked at depression
rates for a number of years after abortion and reveals that the link
between abortion and higher depression rates persists over at least eight
years.''

Psychotherapist Dr. Theresa Burke, founder of Rachel's Vineyard
post-abortion ministries, said she has seen many women haunted by
depression after abortion. More than 6,000 women have participated in
Rachel's Vineyard retreats that are held throughout the country.

''Most of women I have counseled experienced moderate to severe depression
at some point after their abortions,'' said Burke, who co-authored the new
book Forbidden Grief: The Unspoken Pain of Abortion with Reardon. ''Sadly,
many found their experiences dismissed by their families, friends, and
even their therapists. Their grief is often ignored.''

At the National Memorial for the Unborn in Chattanooga, Tenn., thousands
have placed the names of their aborted children on a 50-foot granite
''Wall of Names.'' According to the memorial's administrator, Rita
Siegler, ''When couples see that their child and their experience with
abortion is validated and treated with dignity and respect, this can help
them attain a greater level of healing.''

--
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)    5/2/2002 4:48 pm  
To:  ALL   (5 of 9)  
 
  382.5 in reply to 382.1  
 
Subject:   Bush Administration to Investigate UNFPA Actions in China
Source:   Agence France Presse; May 1, 2002

Bush Administration to Investigate UNFPA Actions in China

Washington, DC -- The Bush administrationwill this month will send a team
to probe the work of the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) in China, after the
White House froze 34 million dollars in US financing to the organization
amid evidence it promoted abortion.

The three-member delegation will provide an "objective assessment" of the
activities of the fund, to allow the administration to judge whether it is
eligible to receive US contributions, said State Department spokesman
Richard Boucher on Wednesday.

The announcement came just before President George W. Bush met China's
leader-in-waiting Hu Jintao at the White House, for talks on frequently
volatile China-US relations.

The US president has the power to reject US funding for any organization
found to support or take part in programs providing forced abortion or
involuntary sterilization, under the 1985 Kemp-Kasten pro-life amendment
to foreign appropriations legislation.

The Reagan and first Bush administration ruled UNFPA was ineligible for
funding because of its projects in China, which has advocated a "one
child" policy of coercive abortions in a bid to stem growth in its vast
population.

Critics of the administration's decision in January to freeze funding for
UNFPA accuse Bush of playing to pro-life groups.

The Clinton administration allocated US funds to UNFPA throughout most of
its eight years in office.

UNFPA has denied funding abortions or coercive family planning practices
in China.

Boucher said the US team would visit China in the last two weeks of May,
and would complete its report by late June.

Its members are William Brown, a former ambassador to Thailand and Israel,
Bonnie Glick, a former State Department employee who served in Ethiopia
and Nicaragua, and Dr Theodore Tong, a professor of Public Health at the
University of Arizona.

The head of UNFPA, Thoraya Obaid, last month called for help promoting
understanding of the fund's more controversial programs.

"We are having a financial crisis because we are accused of promoting and
supporting abortion policies in China as well as in other countries,"
Obaid said.

UNFPA is a key source of funding to population control programs in
developing countries.

--
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)    5/2/2002 4:50 pm  
To:  ALL   (6 of 9)  
 
  382.6 in reply to 382.1  
 
Subject:  Killing Isn't Medicine:  Assisted-Suicide Contortions
Source:   National Review; May 1, 2002

Killing Isn't Medicine:  Assisted-Suicide Contortions
by Wesley Smith

[Pro-Life Infonet Note:  Wesley J. Smith is an attorney for the
International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. He is the
author of "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America" and
co-author of "Power Over Pain: How To Get the Pain Control You Need."]

Last month, to the cheers of editorial writers throughout the country, a
federal judge enjoined Attorney General John Ashcroft from revoking the
federal licenses to prescribe controlled substances of Oregon doctors who
legally assist in a patient's suicide. The Oregon lawsuit was filed last
year when Ashcroft issued a directive in the Federal Register, proclaiming
that assisted suicide was not a "legitimate medical purpose" under the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA). But United States District Court Judge
Robert E. Jones ruled that once Oregon determined that assisted suicide
was a legitimate medical act, the federal government was bound to accede
to the state's determination even when enforcing federal law.

This week, the European Court of Human Rights issued a ruling in another
assisted-suicide case, the facts of which seem to have great bearing on
whether assisted suicide is or is not a medical act. The case involved a
terminally ill woman disabled by Lou Gehrig's disease (known as
motor-neuron disease in Europe) named Diane Pretty. Mrs. Pretty wants to
commit suicide. But her disease has progressed to the point where she
cannot do the deed on her own. So last year, she filed suit in Britain
seeking a court order guaranteeing that her husband would suffer no legal
penalty for helping her kill herself, even though Britain's law prohibits
assisted suicide.

Pretty's case is acutely relevant to Ashcroft's attempt to declare
assisted suicide non-medical under the CSA. Consider the relief Mrs.
Pretty requested from the British and EU courts: She wanted her husband
Brian to help kill her legally. Not her doctor; her husband who,
relevantly, is not a physician and has no medical training other than that
he may have picked up as a caregiver for his wife.

Pretty's lawsuit has been treated with great respect in the British and
European courts. The trial court first gave its permission to bring the
case and then spent a great deal of time hearing evidence and pondering
the law before ultimately rejecting the claim. The House of Lords, the
British equivalent of the Supreme Court, took the appeal and held a
hearing that treated her arguments with utmost solemnity and seriousness.
Then, when the Lords ruled against Mrs. Pretty, the EU Court agreed
quickly to take up the matter to see if Britain's anti-assisted-suicide
law violated the European Rights Convention.

Now imagine what would have happened if this case had not been about
assisted suicide but about Mrs. Pretty wanting her husband to be allowed
to perform surgery on her, such as the minor procedure required to insert
her feeding tube into her abdomen. Or, what if she had brought the case
requesting that her husband be allowed to decide the proper medication for
her to take to alleviate the symptoms of her disease. She would have been
laughed out of court! Why? Because those are actions that are clearly
medical: Only licensed medical professionals can perform surgery or
prescribe medications. Thus, the case would be deemed utterly frivolous
and a waste of the court's time.

Notice also that Mrs. Pretty did not sue to prevent her husband from being
prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license if he assisted her
suicide. The very idea of such a suit is so ludicrous that it would have
never occurred to her attorneys. Assisting a suicide, after all, isn't
medicine.

Further proof of this is found in the advocacy of the euthanasia movement,
which has established a cottage industry in suicide devices. For example,
Derek Humphry, cofounder of the Hemlock Society has established NuTech,
which is devoted to promoting suicide-facilitation devices. As reported
breathlessly Economist in the December 6, 2001, among these contraptions
is the "DeBreather," a face-mask apparatus that recycles a suicidal
person's own carbon dioxide toward the end of cutting off all oxygen.
How-to-commit-suicide videos Humphry promotes (and stars in), also extol
the use helium and a plastic bag to bring life to an end.

Now ask yourself this question: Should Medicare pay for the expense of
obtaining and using a DeBreather if the patient is over 65? Or should your
local HMO provide the device to patients as if it were durable medical
equipment akin to an oxygen tank or a kidney-dialysis machine? Indeed,
should helium be considered a palliative medical agent? The entire concept
is preposterous, ridiculous. Why? Simply stated, killing isn't medicine.

A few years ago, Berkeley Assemblywoman Dion Aroner authored legislation
to legalize physician-assisted suicide in California. At a public forum I
confronted her and made the points I have just written above. Aroner
nodded her head and acknowledged candidly that she would have preferred to
keep doctors out of it. But, she said, she believed it necessary to bring
assisted suicide under a medical umbrella for political reasons.
Otherwise, her bill would have no chance of passage.

Assisted-suicide activists intentionally redefine, distort, and subvert
medicine, medical ethics, and the morality of health-care public policy in
pursuit of their dream of obtaining the right to "choose the time and
manner" of their own deaths. But at least they have an excuse: They are
death fundamentalists driven by a cancerous ideology that is as deeply
felt as the most sincere expression of religious faith. But when a federal
judge thwarts the United States attorney general from recognizing the
obvious truth that intentional killing is not medical by forcing him to
accept Oregon's twisted redefinition, not only has medicine been subverted
but also has language and the law.

--
The Pro-Life Infonet has a format where you can receive each news item
as a separate email. To change, send the message "switch to non-digest" to
Infonet@prolifeinfo.org



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


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    5/13/2002 8:09 am  
To:  ALL   (7 of 9)  
 
  382.7 in reply to 382.1  
 
Source:   Boston Globe; May 10, 2002

Abortion Risks and Dangers Become Larger Part of the National Debate

However, one pro-life advocate says the issue is about who cares more for
the well-being of women considering abortion.

Brind's scientific argument: During pregnancy, the female body produces
added estrogen and growth hormones, enlarging the breasts. During a
full-term pregnancy, new breast cells turn into cells needed to produce
milk. But if the pregnancy is aborted the estrogen stays in the woman's
system. Further, the cell replication occurring in the breasts does not
complete its full course and the cells may become cancerous.

Washington, DC -- Pro-life advocates, in an effort to help women and take
the pro-woman mantra away from abortion activists, have turned their
attention to the the aftereffects of abortion on women, issuing a warning
to women that having an abortion increases the risk of breast cancer . The
existence of such a link has been heatedly disputed by pro-abortion groups
and because of abortion politics has been rejected so far by establishment
leaders at the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and
the Breast Cancer Coalition.

Pro-life advocates insist a medical link exists, pointing to more than two
dozen supportive medical studies. They are lobbying state legislatures -
successfully in a few states - to adopt laws requiring abortion
practitioners to inform women of the link before they have abortions. In
Mississippi and Louisiana, a reference to a possible link between abortion
and breast cancer is required as part of the state's informed-consent
laws, said Dorinda Bordlee, a Louisiana lawyer representing Americans
United for Life. In Kansas, the warning is part of written information
provided to patients.

Massachusetts lawmakers are considering two such bills that are before
committees. The state Legislature is also considering broader ''women's
right to know'' legislation, which would require abortion practitioners to
give women seeking abortions a variety of information on the dangerous
ychological and physical effects of abortion, as well as information on
alternatives to abortion.

''We definitely support the bills. We believe there is a risk between
abortion and breast cancer,'' said Marie Sturgis, executive director of
Massachusetts Citizens for Life.

Melissa Kogut, executive director of the Massachusetts chapter of NARAL,
said the bills have little chance of passage this year because lawmakers
are consumed with budget issues and their reelection campaigns. But ''the
political landscape could change next year'' after the elections, she
said.

Right-to-know legislation got a boost from a 1992 Supreme Court decision
upholding similar legislation in Pennsylvania. That ruling said states may
pass such laws as a 24-hour waiting period and informed consent laws.

Meanwhile, abortion advocates have criticized pro-life groups for
promoting such legislation.

''The antichoice movement has switched their tactics somewhat, and now are
trying to attempt to dissuade women from having abortions by using medical
misinformation,'' said Vicki Saporta, executive director of the National
Abortion Federation.  Abortion foes accuse cancer organizations of a
coverup.

However, one pro-life advocate says the issue is about who cares more for
the well-being of women considering abortion.

''This is a politically explosive issue. They're taking on the women's
groups that have promoted abortion for several decades now,'' said Karen
Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion-Breast Cancer. ''[Abortion
advocates] have just not wanted to recognize this risk. There is a
conspiracy of silence.''

The most vocal person researching a link between breast cancer and
abortion is Dr. Joel Brind, a professor of biology and endocrinology at
Baruch University in New York.  Brind has testified before state
legislatures and courts as an expert on the subject.

Brind's scientific argument: During pregnancy, the female body produces
added estrogen and growth hormones, enlarging the breasts. During a
full-term pregnancy, new breast cells turn into cells needed to produce
milk. But if the pregnancy is aborted the estrogen stays in the woman's
system. Further, the cell replication occurring in the breasts does not
complete its full course and the cells may become cancerous.

--
The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of pro-life news and
information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to:
. 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 




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


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    5/13/2002 11:53 am  
To:  ALL   (8 of 9)  
 
  382.8 in reply to 382.1  
 
Subject:   Abortions Outpace Adoption 80-1 at Planned Parenthood
Source:   Cybercast News Service; May 8, 2002

Abortions Outpace Adoption 80-1 at Planned Parenthood

Washington, DC -- When it comes to pregnant women deciding between
abortion and adoption, more than 98 percent of those women seeking counsel
from Planned Parenthood Federation of America ended their pregnancies with
abortion in 2000, according to data collected by the organization.

Meanwhile, the number of adoption referrals by PPFA fell for the fourth
consecutive year in 2000, to fewer than 2,500.

During the same year, Planned Parenthood clinics around the country
performed almost 200,000 abortions, according to statistics available on
the organization's Internet website.

Stated another way, Planned Parenthood abortionists performed almost 80
abortions for every adoption referral the organization made in 2000, the
data show.

According to Planned Parenthood, there were 9,200 adoption referrals in
1997, but that number had dropped to 2,486 by 2000.

"That's a whopping 73.5 percent decrease from what they were in 1997,"
said Ed Szymkowiak, spokesman for STOPP International. "During the same
time period, Planned Parenthood's abortion procedures increased 19.3
percent."

According to the Planned Parenthood website, the organization performed
197,070 abortions in 2000, representing tens of millions of dollars
annually for the group in a single year.

Officials with PPFA did not respond to repeated telephone calls seeking
comment for this article, but a female CNSNews staffer who contacted one
of the group's abortion clinics Tuesday was informed that the cost of an
abortion starts at more than $300.

According to Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, D.C., the
price of an abortion for a woman who's been pregnant for 12 weeks or less
is $325. At 13 weeks, the price rises to $350, with still higher prices
for women who are further along in their pregnancies.

Using an average cost of $350 for an abortion, PPFA would have taken in
nearly $69 million for abortions in 2000.

--
Please consider making a donation to help the work of the Pro-Life
Infonet. You can send a donation to:  Women and Children First, PO Box
4433, Helena, MT 59604-4433. We appreciate your support.


--------------------
From:  The Pro-Life Infonet infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt www.prolifeinfo.org



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


   From:  David (DavidABrown)    6/13/2002 11:13 am  
To:  ALL   (9 of 9)  
 
  382.9 in reply to 382.8  
 
From:  The Pro-Life Infonet www.prolifeinfo.org
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Subject:   Abortion Traning:  Forcing Doctors to Kill
Source:   Creators Syndicate; June 7, 2002

Abortion Traning:  Forcing Doctors to Kill
by Michelle Malkin

[Pro-Life Infonet Note:  Michelle Malkin is a nationally syndicated
columnist.]

After three decades dominated by the rabid rhetoric of reproductive
choice, the number of doctors choosing to perform abortions keeps
shrinking.

This is a significant cultural phenomenon, but don't look for the National
Organization for Women or National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action
League (NARAL) to explore it truthfully anytime soon. The last thing
feminists want to contemplate is how their crusading efforts to diversify
medical schools might have actually backfired by resulting in more women
doctors -- who take their commitment to protecting all human life
seriously.

The abortion forces blame political intimidation by their opponents for
the decline. But maybe, just maybe, the abortionist shortage is occurring
because a growing number of doctors have concluded that providing induced
"therapeutic" abortion is a fundamental violation of their professional
creed. The Hippocratic oath states clearly: "I will maintain the utmost
respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and
reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life."

Between 1992 and 1996, The Washington Post noted in a recent panicky
editorial, the number of abortion providers in America declined by 14
percent. The downward trend has been ongoing for 20 years.  Of roughly
2,000 doctors who now perform abortions nationwide, more than half are
over 50 and closing in on retirement. The Post's analysis: "The greatest
decrease was among doctors in private practice, who are less likely to
perform abortions the younger they are; and hospitals, which, as they are
bought by religious institutions and for-profit chains, increasingly
prefer to avoid the controversies that abortion entails."

In other words, the unencumbered exercise of religious liberty and the
power of the free market have combined to reduce the number of willing
abortion providers. Oh, how awful.

To remedy this calamitous epidemic of new young doctors listening to their
consciences (gasp), the abortion lobby has conjured a tidy solution:
Infiltrate public training hospitals and force future doctors to learn the
bloody tools of the abortion trade.

Ground Zero in this new abortion front is New York City, which trains
one-seventh of the nation's doctors. The New York chapter of NARAL secured
the support of liberal Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg to use
taxpayer-funded medical facilities as private recruitment camps. Beginning
next month, abortion training for obstetrics and gynecology residents in
New York's 11 public hospitals will become part of the compulsory
curriculum, rather than an elective that trainees generally eschew.

Ob-gyn residents will spend four to eight weeks in a full-time rotation on
"family planning." Or rather, family reduction. The residents will learn
the whole gamut of abortion methods, from chemical to surgical. As one
online women's publication described it, fledgling doctors will be trained
in new methods that "will move abortion from the operating room to a
'procedure room,' increasing the number of abortions that can be performed
per day and decreasing delays for women who want abortions."

Those who disagree with the abortion-training mandate must opt out by
invoking a narrowly written conscience clause. Abortion activists make
their headhunting agenda of coercion clear. "It is not enough for training
to be available on an elective basis to overworked residents," the
National Abortion Federation argues. "Programs need to set expectations of
resident participation in routine abortion training so that trainees who
exercise a conscience clause provision to opt out become the exception and
not the rule."

New York City is a trendsetter. NARAL is hoping that public hospitals
across the country will follow its lead in using the power of government
to force more doctors to accept abortion as a normal health care
procedure. But there is absolutely no sound medical rationale for this new
training mandate. It is a purely political hammer intended to bully
residents into abandoning their ethical principles. The medical community
has been right to recoil, and must continue to resist the radical
abortionist stance that destroying life should be as integral to a
doctor's mission as delivering it.

-- 
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  
 
