![[IMAGE]](corp7.bmp)
|
Articles In This Issue |
| November Newsletter, 1999 | Newsletter Index | CoR Home | Contact Us | Feedback |
|
|
Articles In This Issue |
| November Newsletter, 1999 | Newsletter Index | CoR Home | Contact Us | Feedback |
By Frank Joseph MD
One of the most amazing photographs that you'll ever see is that of Samuel, a 21-week-old baby boy, whose tiny hand reaches out of the womb to grab the finger of the surgeon who was operating on him -- as if to say, "Thanks, Doc! You did a wonderful job."
It happened when Dr. Joseph P. Bruner, director of fetal diagnosis and treatment at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, was performing a cutting-edge procedure on the 21-week-old fetus. Bruner and Samuel's parents hope the surgery will alleviate the effects of spina bifida a disabling birth defect in one or two of every 1,000 babies born. During the procedure, surgeons remove the uterus from the mother, drain the amniotic fluid, perform surgery on the tiny fetus, replace everything and put the entire package back inside the mother. The procedure on Samuel took about an hour.
There are no words to describe this incredible picture. If this photo doesn't set the abortion industry and the pro-abortion crowd on It's ears, then heaven help us. The defenders of a women's right to kill her unborn baby would have you believe that Samuel is nothing but a non-sentient blob of tissue. Never again will they be able to make that statement.
|
With all that open space, instead of just reaching for air, the baby's hand actually grabbed the doctor's finger. In my book, this 21-week-old precious creation of God is more sentient than those, who advocate the proposition that a woman should have the right to kill her unborn baby, if she so chooses. It was almost as if Samuel was shaking the finger of the hand of the man who was trying to save his life -- to thank him for his compassion and efforts. Contrast this with the advocates of abortion who sealed their pact with the devil, by shaking the hand of Satan. |
It must be shown to the whole world and you can bet that the liberal press and media in general will try to suppress it.
By Katherine Sabelko
The Republican Congress declared no money would go to pay the United States alleged debt to the United Nations until the family planning programs were modified. Though the ink is a bit smeared and the print seems rather blurred, it appears little ground was gained on this issue. We can all hear Clinton whining, "They made me do it! It's not my fault!" Press reports cited Madeline Albright was prepared to buffer the blows of angry pro-abortionists when the decision was announced.
Steven Mufson, Washington Post staff writer and outspoken advocate of negative population planning, attempted to help defend the Clinton administration. His article, Washington Post, November 25, Albright Promises Family Planning Funds: Next U.S. Budget Will Restore Losses From U.N. Debt Compromise, Secretary Says [Liberals get longgggg titles to articles] was nothing more than a press release for Albright:
Seeking to defuse anger among women's groups, Secretary of State Madeline K. Albright vowed yesterday that President Clinton's next budget proposal would sharply increase U.S. funding for international family planning programs.
Albright, who attended a luncheon with leaders of women's groups and family planning organizations, said the administration "remains deeply dissatisfied" with restrictions on aid to family planning groups that it reluctantly accepted in order to obtain money to pay U.S. debts to the United Nations in the fiscal 2000 budget.
Taking aim at members of Congress who insisted on those restrictions as a condition for U.N. funding, Albright said "it is unwise, illogical and wrong to hold our obligations to the United Nations hostage to an extremist agenda on international family planning."
Now, Ms. Albright, who is the extremist here when all pro-lifers want is to protect families, women and dear babies and all you want to do is to abort the world's poor and defenseless peoples?
Yet, this is not the worst of the news concerning the attempt to limit U.S. tax-payer monies funding the United Nations' abortion agenda.
Apparently there was a waiver Clinton was able to use in the agreement of restricting monies to go to the support of abortion activities via the U.N.
Reuters News Service reported
The agreement said Clinton could waive restrictions requiring international family planning groups to certify that for the period they received U.S. funds, they would not perform abortions in foreign countries except where the life of the mother was endangered or in cases of rape or incest, nor lobby to change anti-abortion laws.
"We made it very clear at the time that the president was going to exercise the waiver," a White House spokesman said.
By signing the waiver on Monday, Clinton allowed a total of $15 million to be given to groups that advocate abortion rights overseas from a total $385 million available for grants by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to international family planning groups, the White House said.
Though it is reported that Rep. Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican, declared a victory for anti-abortion advocates, it certainly doesn't feel like a victory.
"The bottom line is that once the president hits the $15 million cap, he can no longer fund or support foreign groups that will not comply with the pro-life safeguards," Smith said in a statement. "Our goal is to limit the exportation of abortion and this legislation helps us accomplish that," he added.
We gained very little on this issue and lost a major levering tool in the process.
Once again the sacredness of life was devalued by a San Bernardino, California judge when she ruled that a pre-born baby who died from injuries from a drunk driver car accident was not considered human.
We have heard this before, but this time the ante was raised - the child died from the injuries after being born.
Superior Court Judge Mary Fuller said in her ruling that Olivia Taylor Garcia did not "meet the definition of a viable human being" when she was delivered in the eighth month by emergency Caesarian section.
The child lived for four hours after delivery.
The mother said, "Had I not been hit by a drunk driver, my daughter would still be alive. I don't care what the judge said. To my husband and me, she was alive. We held her. We watched her die."
Mrs. Garcia, 25, was about eight months pregnant when the drunk driver, Antonio Ortiz ran a red light and hit the Garcia car. Ortiz had a blood-alcohol level of .22 percent, nearly three times the legal limit.
In a Washington Post article, November 23, Prosecutor Kent D. Williams argued "that, although the baby did not have a heartbeat for 45 minutes after delivery, she had two minor seizures and gasped for breath, indicating she was legally alive. It's a preposterous result. It's exactly as if the mother was not pregnant at all."
Laurie Levenson, associate dean of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, told The Washington Post the judge had to deal with varying definitions of "life." "You have one definition for murder, one for manslaughter, one for abortion," she said. "As difficult as the decision was for the judge to make ... it's a legal decision, not a medical one."
With this type of mentality expressed, our older generations better hold on, because they will be the next group for a revision of the value and definition of life. - K.S.
Your newsletter seems to be getting better each issue and more in depth than many pro-life publications have been recently.
Congratulations on your efforts for presenting reliable information!
Gloria Zelnick
El Paso, Texas
I was disappointed in your coverage of the sale of baby body parts. I don't think a disgusting topic such as that should be in your publication.
First, the topic itself sickened me and second, there are times when the tissue of a dead baby will help someone else to live. What is your objection - since the child has already dies?
I think you should stick to the issue of abortion and not get involved in the medical areas where you have no expertise.
Jeremy Albertson,
Toledo, OH
I've noted that you haven't covered Ambassador Keyes in the coverage of possible candidates for president. I thought I'd send one of his position statements to you for a reminder.
By Alan Keyes
If the Declaration of Independence states our creed, there can be no right to abortion, since it means denying the most fundamental right of all, to human offspring in the womb. The Declaration states plainly that we are all created equal, endowed by our Creator with our human rights. But if human beings can decide who is human and who is not, the doctrine of God-given rights is utterly corrupted. Abortion is the unjust taking of a human life and a breach of the fundamental principles of our public moral creed.
Some people talk about "viability" as a test to determine which offspring have rights that we must respect, and which do not. But might does not make right. And so the mere fact that the individual in the womb is wholly in its mother's physical power and completely dependent upon her for sustenance gives her no right whatsoever with respect to its life, since the mere possession of physical power can never confer such a right. Medical procedures resulting in the death of an unborn child, except as a collateral and unintended consequence of efforts to save the mother's physical life, are therefore impermissible.
As for the 'so-called right to suicide' and related practices, such as euthanasia, whatever emotional arguments we make on their behalf, they represent a violation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Our rights, including the right to life, are unalienable. If we kill ourselves or consent to allow another to do so, we both destroy and surrender our life. We act unjustly. We usurp the authority that belongs solely to the Creator, and deny the basis of our claim to human rights.
Sincerely,
Ralph Marquet
Greenhills, Georgia
I wanted to share this with the rest of your readers.
I know a woman (formerly an abortionist herself) who knew the abortionist killed by Paul Hill, and she said the abortionist had gone to doing only very early term abortions, and was struggling through, working his way through, the right and wrong of the issue, and was thinking about quitting doing abortions altogether, when he was killed.
You know that prayer, "lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy," perhaps God will give him a break. Remember the scripture where Jesus talks about it being easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven (that in itself is another story, I saw it on EWTN, the "eye" was actually a gate into the city!), and then Jesus goes on to say that some things might be impossible for man (to do, to understand) but that all things are possible with God. God also says He will give His grace as He pleases. I think that God will be fair and just, and more than that. He has certainly been generous with me, and I know I don't deserve anything! I killed two of my own children in 1977, then worked in the abortion clinic in 1988. But that is the miracle of Christ's blood. We deserve nothing, and receive everything.
Luhra Tivis Warren
Little Rock, AR
*****************
What is your opinion? Letters must be signed to be published. Write to
Letters to the Editor
P.O. Box 2021
Glendale, AZ 85311
Or e-mail us at .
By Fr. Pavonne of Priests for Life
The latest effort of the pro-abortion forces to deflect attention from the horror of Partial-birth Abortion, which the Senate voted last week to ban by nearly a two-thirds majority, was to introduce a resolution affirming that Roe vs. Wade was rightly decided. That passed by the slimmest possible majority. We need to keep a spotlight on partial-birth abortion until it is banned. It is also worthwhile, however, to point out a few implications of the pro-Roe resolution.
For the Senators who believe that Roe was rightly decided, a few reminders are in order:
1. The way Roe envisioned the provision of abortion has little or nothing to do with how it is actually performed in the United States today. The Court said the following:
The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available (Roe at 165-166).
The website of the "pro-choice" Alan Guttmacher Institute lists the major reasons women get abortion as follows:
On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion:None of these is a medical reason.
- 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities;
- about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and
- 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner
Our experience with post-abortive women indicates that they do not have any meaningful consultation with the abortionist ahead of time. They usually don't even know his name.
And as far as abusing the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, abortion malpractice attorneys have been trained by the hundreds to deal with the cases of abuse coming to light. The book Lime 5, published by Life Dynamics, gives us some idea of the extent of the tragedy. Are the pro-Roe Senators willing to apply Roe's words about the need for the state to regulate abuses by abortionists?
2. Roe did not endorse the position that many abortion-defenders embrace, namely, that of absolute privacy and no regulation of abortion at all. Here are the words of the Court:
The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation (Roe at 154).
3. Jane Roe herself (Norma McCorvey) has renounced the Roe vs. Wade decision and works full-time against all abortion. On March 23, 1997, she publicly declared these memorable words:
I am Norma McCorvey. I became known as Jane Roe on January 22, 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court released the Roe v. Wade decision, which created a woman's "right to abortion". I am now a child of God, a new creature in Christ; I am forgiven and redeemed. Today, I publicly recant my involvement in the tragedy of abortion. I humbly ask forgiveness of the millions of women and unborn babies who have experienced the violence of abortion. In this place of healing, the National Memorial for the Unborn, I stand with those who honor the worth of every unborn child as created in the image of God. I will strive, in the name of Jesus, to end this holocaust.
A bipartisan majority of the US House of Representatives voted 271-156 to pass the Pain Relief Promotion Act (HR 2260) on Wednesday, October 27. The bill encourages physicians to aggressively use of pain medication and at the same time makes it clear that federally-controlled substances may not be used for physician-assisted suicide. Contrary to some published reports the bill would not rescind the Oregon law, but it would make it a crime for doctors in that state or other states to prescribe federally-controlled substances to a patient for the purpose of suicide. [Cinnet]
Right-to-die activists from around the world gathered Saturday, November 13, 1999, in Seattle, WA, to discuss and demonstrate do-it-yourself suicide devices. Such devices included the "expirator," which delivers a fatal dose of nitrogen, and a multitude of other devices using various gases (helium or carbon monoxide, for example). All the devices are designed to be built at home and used without interference from the legal or medical systems. The conference was sponsored by the Euthanasia Research & Guidance Council (ERGO) based in Junction City, OR, and founded by Derek Humphry. [11/13/99 - Associated Press]
Attorney General Joe Mazurek decided not to appeal a state law requiring parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion.
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that parents have a right to know if their daughter is having an abortion," noted Steven Ertelt, Executive Director of Montana Right to Life. "Parents are left to pick up the pieces after the physical and emotional damage of an abortion, but before that they are not entitled to have any knowledge of their daughter's abortion decision. That's outrageous."
The Attorney General decided to have the case dismissed in response to a far-reaching pro-abortion ruling by the Montana State Supreme Court in October. The ruling, concerning a 1995 law to ensure that only physicians can perform abortions, essentially has denied sensible abortion legislation any chance of surviving in Montana courts.
"The October ruling erroneously said the 'right to privacy' in Montana's state constitution allows for unrestricted abortion on demand," Ertelt explained. "Those who drafted the state constitution in 1972 made no mention of the right to privacy allowing abortion on demand and transcripts of the proceedings indicate they left the abortion issue to the state legislature to decide."
Omaha World-Herald, November 28, University of Nebraska Med. Center Using Aborted Children's Brain Cells for Alzheimer's Research covered the story of scientists at the University of Nebraska Medical Center using brain cells from aborted babies in Alzheimer's disease research. With this sick excuse for medical researchers to use other humans for their own personal ambitions, we have now faced a new area of spiritual evil.
The University of Nebraska uses federal monies for the controversial research involving pre-born baby bodies. National Institutes of Health, (NIH) supports this work by more than $1 million a year in taxpayer-funded grants.
Abortionist LeRoy H. Carhart, operator of Bellevue, Nebraska-based Abortion & Contraception Clinic of Nebraska, provides the baby body parts to the University.
Dr. William O. Berndt tried to defend the practice by saying, "This is important stuff. The history of science tells us the important stuff always has been controversial." Sadly, these actions do not even compare with what people considered "controversial" in medical research in the past. Shouts of horror over testing on lab animals or the dismembering of baby chicks from a bird's nest can not be compared to this Satanic practice supported by many medical professionals and accepted by many more scientists solely by their silence.
The studies have been reviewed by a Medical Center oversight committee, whose names Berndt refused to disclose, citing possible adverse public reactions. That's right. Frankenstein doesn't want his neighbors to know that he is doing in his pristine laboratory. When Berndt declined to identify members of the Medical Center's research team citing concerns about possible adverse public reaction, he clearly acknowledged that most people still have some moral outrage on the subject of the killing and dismembering of innocent children who are defenseless.
For several years, the federal government had banned the use of federal funds to support research involving fetal tissue. The ban was lifted in 1993 at the direction of President Clinton.
Julie Schmit-Albin, Executive Director of Nebraska Right to Life, was quoted in the article, Children's Brain Cells for Alzheimer's Research, Daily Nebraskan, November 29, saying, "Giving women a humanitarian justification to abort their unborn children could increase the number of abortions, which is already at 1.6 million a year in the United States."
Abortionist Carhart said several women who had come to his abortion facility asked if fetal tissue couldn't be given to a university for research rather than disposed of in the medical waste incinerator. "It's like donating organs," he said. Wrong - it's the exact stuff that Hitler did! But then we have always said that abortion is the new Holocaust.
On November 30, one day after the initial story broke, the Governor of Nebraska spoke out against the practice. In the article, Fetal-Cell Use Upsets Governor, by Mary McGrath and Mike Sherry, World-Herald, November 30, Gov. Mike Johanns is asking University of Nebraska officials to stop using tissue from aborted human fetuses for research at the NU Medical Center.
"The governor intends to indicate his very grave concern," said Chris Peterson, a spokesman for the governor.
The article covered the reaction of the state legislators: The Speaker of the Legislature, Doug Kristensen of Minden, said Monday that if the university refuses to stop using tissue from aborted human fetuses, lawmakers may threaten to cut university funding. "I think it's in very poor political judgment and obviously sparks a debate that will question all sorts of other things they do," Kristensen said.
Hassebrook said university administrators should have called the regents' attention to the federal grants that fund the research instead of including it in a long quarterly list provided for information only.
"How many regents do you think carefully study all that?" he asked. "These are not the sorts of things you go through with a fine-tooth comb." He also said the limited notification that was given to the board apparently came last year after the funding had started. The university's central administration offices late Monday provided copies of 1997-98 summaries of four research projects that university officials identified for The World-Herald as involving human fetal brain cells. None explicitly uses the description "human fetal cells."
The summaries were in materials that previously had been submitted to the regents for their information. One summary says "this research will supply brain tissues from autopsy, the Medical Center's neuroscience center programs deals with "the isolation, cultivation and experimentation of brain tissues/cells from a variety of mammalian sources."
The summaries of the other three research projects make no mention of fetal cells.
It is unfortunate but in today's society, each and every research project must be carefully studied for their planned activities, every medical practice must be inspected for their hidden activities concerning abortion and unethical research. The medical and scientific communities have now proven they can not be trusted with practices and procedures concerning any ethical gray areas.
It seems only pro-lifers speak for the children and only money speaks for the majority of the medical profession. - K.S.
I was 19 years old when I became pregnant. I generally used a diaphragm during sex, but that one night I was unprepared.
I was single and going to college full time as well as working a part-time job. When I told my boyfriend of the news and asked him whether I should get an abortion, he said that he would be supportive of whatever choice I made.
I had my whole life ahead of me. All I could picture was how this pregnancy and having a child would ruin my life. I'd have to quit school, possibly marry my boyfriend whom I wasn't sure I'd want to marry, and go on welfare to be able to support a child.
I didn't feel that I had any alternatives to abortion. The clinic that I went to didn't offer any. I only told one girlfriend about my pregnancy. I was very careful not to tell anyone that might "judge" me. This one girlfriend went with me on that fateful day to the abortion clinic.
I joined several other women that day in the clinic. There were probably five to eight of us. We all went through some sort of orientation together, were given a mild tranquilizer, given the paper clothes to wear, and then we each waited our turn.
I had a suction-type abortion and cried through the entire horrible procedure. I cried to God to forgive me for killing my baby. It was only during that awful procedure that I referred to the life within me as a baby.
I remember the clinic calling me within a few days after the abortion to tell me that they may not have gotten all the tissue out. I was horrified. I thought to myself that before I would return there to go through that again, I would sooner die. Luckily, they didn't call again.
My self-image sank lower and lower. I only told people who I thought were liberal about my abortion. I couldn't face further rejection by telling someone who thought what I did was wrong. The thing is, though, that I felt that what I did was wrong and I couldn't forgive myself for what I had done. I ended up marrying my boyfriend, who was a practicing alcoholic and drug user. I figured that I didn't deserve anyone better.
That marriage lasted less than a year. Now, years later, I've been able to accept the forgiveness that God offered to me and have been able to forgive myself. I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior and owe all my healing to Him. He has worked through several different channels of healing. I've also found love and acceptance from those around me who I thought earlier would judge me.
I am now involved in the Pro-Life movement and will continue to speak out for the unborn as long as I am able. There are so many factors that could be cited in my story, but that literally would require a book to write them all down. My hopes are that what I have shared will help others. (Name Withheld)
Scientific Progress
According to one of the most prestigious European geneticists, Jesuit Angelo Serra, Professor Emeritus of the Faculty of Medicine of the Sacred Heart University in Rome, "research on the human genome began in 1989 and after ten years we only know about 6% of this map that contains 3 billion letters. 1,462 genes are known, on which genetic diseases depend, and 4,500 monogenetic illnesses have been identified, to which must be added all the rest, such as tumors, which are polygenetic illnesses." Serra said that "the progress of scientific knowledge is exceptional, although its application is deficient.The 600 experiments of genetic engineering that are currently underway on illnesses such as AIDS, cancer, monogenetic and enzymatic sicknesses, to date have not given definitive results, as they have not succeeded in curing the dysfunction of some genes that cause the sicknesses."[Emphasis added]
New Medical Responsibility
Serra denounced that "instead of making the medical and health personnel more aware of their own responsibilities, this knowledge is heading "toward moral shipwreck." He mentioned pre-natal diagnoses, which "tend to eliminate the subject that could develop the sick ness, instead of curing it."
Finally, Bishop Sgreccia confirmed that "the Pontifical Academy for Life says no to the cloning of man in all its forms."
***********
Ed. Note: Though this press release addressed an issue in Wisconsin, it could clearly be a red flag raised in any of the other states. Only when we are aware of the most subtle (?) efforts to debase the value of all life, will we be effective in stopping it in the legislature, in the courts and in our schools.
Here is a copy of the memo sent out to the state legislators explaining Pro-Life Wisconsin's opposition to a registry which would force all children with disabilities from birth to two years old to register with the state.
Birth Defect Registry
By Mary Matuska,
Legislative Director, Pro-Life Wisconsin
Pro-Life Wisconsin would like to take the opportunity to share our concerns with Assembly Bill 579/SB290 relating to birth defects prevention surveillance.
It is important to protect and help children with disabilities as much as possible. While we do not doubt the sincerity of the concerns that compelled the authors to initiate this legislative proposal, we believe it is necessary to consider the potentially serious long-term harm this proposal may inflict on the children of Wisconsin. Specifically, Pro-Life Wisconsin is concerned with the following items:
1) Creation of a Council on Birth Defect Prevention and Surveillance. As others have alluded to in the past, the concern that this Council, or members of the Council, may view abortion as a means of birth defect prevention is a serious one. Even with the explicit language in AB 579/SB290 requiring the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) to develop preventive strategies "without increasing abortions," the potential for the Council or state officials to create an atmosphere where parents carrying disabled children may feel undue pressure---via genetic testing or specific diagnoses---to abort their children is real. While few birth defect prevention organizations advocate abortion as a preventive strategy, many do advocate genetic testing and subsequent counseling which can increase abortion rates.
We are also concerned that this Council, if created, may advocate other anti-life measures as a means of "preventing birth defects." Sadly, some organizations advocating research into the cause of birth defects have advocated the use of research on human embryos (referred to as "stem cell research"). There is nothing in this bill that prohibits the Council from advocating research that destroys or manipulates human embryos.
2) "Preventive Strategies"
While AB 579/SB290 instructs DHFS to develop preventive strategies to decrease the occurrence of birth defects without increasing abortions, other possible preventive strategies are not prohibited. For example, if DHFS officials discover a trend of birth defects in a given geographic area, will the state begin an effort to convince parents to subject their preborn child to genetic tests that are sometimes dangerous and not always definitive? While genetic testing in and of itself is not unethical, the use of such tests to identify preborn children with disabilities can implicitly create an atmosphere where abortion is viewed as a humane and acceptable option.
We believe it is important for the State of Wisconsin to send a clear message that those with disabilities, no matter their age, are valued members of this society. Despite the honorable intentions of the authors, this bill does not validate that life-affirming message.
Sex Education:
According to Ann Schurmann of the
Rutgers Network for Family Life Education, http://www.gURL.com (sponsored by iturf inc. in New York) will give sex facts to young people of any age "because parents aren't passing on the information."
Each of these web sites targets teenagers:
http://www.gURL.com, sponsored by iturf inc. in New York;
http://www.sxetc.org, sponsored by Rutgers Network for Family Life Education;
http://www.itsyoursexlife.com, sponsored by Kaiser Family Foundation;
http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu, sponsored by Columbia University;
http://www.teenadviceonline.com, sponsored by nonprofessionals age 13 and up;
http://www.teenwire.com, sponsored by Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
(Reading: Rebecca Wyatt, "Sex-Ed Web Sites Multiplying Like Birds, Bees of Old," Washington Times, 11/26/99; [Source - American Life League Communique. To subscribe to Communique, emailcommunique@all.org. or visit American Life League online athttp://www.all.org.
Web Sites of Presidential Candidates with their stands on abortion, euthanasia and life issues.
Democrats:
Bill Bradley: http://www.billbradley.com
Al Gore: http://www.algore2000.com
Republican Party:
Gary Bauer: http://www.bauer2K.com
George W. Bush: http://www.georgewbush.com
Steve Forbes: http://www.forbes2000.com
Orrin Hatch: http://www.OrrinHatch.org
Alan Keyes: http://www.keyes2000.org
John McCain: http://www.mccain2000.com
Reform Party:
Pat Buchanan: http://www.gopatgo2000.com
Donald Trump: http://www.donaldjtrump2000.org
By Luhra Tivis Warren
It was a breezy summer day in Kansas City, 1993. Allison and I drove from her nearby home to the Kansas City abortion clinic in the early morning. I had just come from a speaking engagement in O'Neill, Nebraska. We were the first people to arrive there that day, even before the clinic employees.
She parked at the curb, just across the sidewalk from the clinic. As we emerged from the car, we could see that something was not quite right at the entrance to the clinic, but we were not sure just what.
An employee of the clinic arrived and parked in the clinic's private parking lot. This person went to the door and tried to unlock it, but it wouldn't budge. More clinic employees arrived and conferred around the door. Evidently the lock had been superglued shut.
We watched all of this with great interest, but could honestly tell the police when they arrived that we did not do it, and we did not know who did. A clinic employee then broke a little window beside the door, reached in, and got the door open, so they opened right on schedule.
Suddenly, an ordinary sedan screeched to a halt at the curb, and a distraught young man ran toward the sidewalk counselors, yelling at them angrily and waving his arms. He ran down the sidewalk to the group of us doing the Rosary, and the most odd thing happened. As he ran around our circle, we continued praying. He shouted at us and I could see several of the men grimacing and keeping their heads down, but peace prevailed for Christ. The young man slowed and stopped his running.
One of the young men who were sidewalk counseling came to him and gently led him to sit down and talk. They talked for some time. We continued to pray the Rosary. Soon the distraught young man, now at peace, came to our group and shook our hands, thanked us for praying, and left with a changed heart.
We did not pry into the private content of the conversation that this unhappy soul had with the sidewalk counselor, but we could just about guess his story. He was probably angry and bitter and grieving about the loss of his own child to abortion. That is sometimes the case where the father is totally left out of the decision of what to do about his tiny child. Even if a father wants to give his child a loving and nurturing home, the decision to abort is legally left up to the mother. Imagine being absolutely powerless as your little child is led to the slaughter. Who could calmly experience the anguish?
What I do know with absolute certainty is that praying the Rosary that day, at that clinic, led to something greater than ourselves.
Luhan Warren can be reached at cana@aristotle.net or visit her website at http://www.christ-like.org.
By Katherine Sabelko
States too numerous to mention have attempted to pass laws banning the disgusting procedure of partial-birth abortion, yet time and time again, federal circuit courts of appeal have made conflicting decisions on the issue.
An article in a Nebraska newspaper, Journal Star, November 16, Stenberg: Appeal could end abortions, by Butch Mabin, presents a theory that it is exactly that problem that may be the very link in the chain that will break the death hold that Roe v. Wade has on this country.
Nebraska, one of over 30 states that successfully passed a ban on partial-birth abortion procedures in 1997, lost an Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals case. This month though, 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 5-4 upholding partial-birth abortion ban laws in Illinois and Wisconsin. This ruling was in direct conflict with a ruling earlier this year by the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals that overturned similar laws in Nebraska, Arkansas, and Iowa. Most observers believe that these conflicting rulings will set the stage for a hearing of the issue by the US Supreme Court.
Attorney General Don Stenberg believes if the United States Supreme Court will hear the Nebraska appeal, there is a chance the highest court in the land will take the opportunity to either modify the Roe vs. Wade Decision or even overrule the 1997 case. Steinberg stated, "In my opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court will not allow the lower federal courts to invalidate partial-birth abortion ban laws in some states and uphold them in others."
The position of the appeal, as Mabin wrote, Stenberg said the high court could use the Nebraska appeal to "get to" Roe vs. Wade by reviewing the state's arguments that the Nebraska law did not place an "undue burden" on the right to abortions.
Following the decision, the pro-abortion press has taken up the theme that the passage of a federal partial-birth-abortion ban by the Senate last week and upholding of the state laws by the 7th Circuit Court this week constitutes a fundamental challenge to the constitutional right to an abortion. If the High Court should choose to review these rulings, much will depend upon whether the justices view the law as a regulation of one particular type of abortion.
After battling tuberculous meningitis and undergoing brain surgery, Sophia Park, wife and now mother of 10-week-old preborn baby, was declared brain dead.
When the husband Paul Shin was faced with the decision at Toronto Western Hospital to allow the doctors to disconnect the life support systems for his wife, he knew he would also be signing the death warrant for his yet-to-be-born child.
Though the doctors informed the family the child would be severely handicapped, Shin requested that his wife of only six months be kept on life support for three months so that the baby can be delivered and then placed in an incubator.
Sadly, though, the decision will still be made, not by the two Catholic families, but by doctors.
Margaret Somerville, an ethics specialist at McGill University in Montreal, said normally a hospital would not be required to keep a clinically-dead person on life support. If two doctors decided to take her off life support, the hospital could pull the plug.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., calls for hearings into the practice of "private companies that are involved in the trafficking of baby body parts for profit."
"Very few people know that there are companies out there that buy the dead babies' bodies from abortion mills and then turn around and sell them," said Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics, a pro-life organization that has investigated the practice. Privately - and federally funded fetal-tissue research is legal in the United States, but it didn't use to be. President Clinton in 1993 signed a law lifting the ban on taxpayer-funding for such research.
Yet the law also makes it a crime for anyone to "knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration." In other words, buying and selling the body parts of unborn babies is a crime.
Private companies have apparently found a loophole in the law, however, that allows them to pay for "the privilege" of obtaining body parts. Congressional hearings would look into this practice. [11/10/99 - Citizen Issues Alert]
![[IMAGE]](twst_bar.gif){kind=small}