Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Abortion
News Board Index > Miscellaneous > Library
Thursday, April 6, 2006


ACLU 'falsely' boots out abstinence program
Accused of spreading distortions that got curriculum barred by state

Posted: April 6, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006
A group that had its abstinence education program barred by the state of Rhode Island after a complaint from the local ACLU, says the civil liberties group is spreading half-truths and distortions.

Heritage of Rhode Island, which produces a curriculum called "Right Time, Right Place," says the ACLU has falsely claimed a video in its program makes specific references to "a relationship with Jesus" and other faith-based issues, reports Agape Press.

In a news release, the Rhode Island ACLU said, "Programs like Heritage of Rhode Island subject students to an abstinence-only-until-marriage curriculum that is both ineffective and harmful. Teens need information on how to protect themselves from unintended pregnancy and STDs - they don't need sex education riddled with inaccuracies and gender stereotypes."

Heritage Executive Director Chris Plante, however, charges the ACLU has spread "misinformation" and has "not accepted any of our invitations to set the record straight."

The Rhode Island Department of Education recently ordered the state's public schools to stop Heritage's abstinence curricula, Agape Press said, after the ACLU complained it violated the First Amendment's clause prohibiting Congress from making a law establishing a religion.

Plante contends, however, the ACLU is confusing his group's video with a "Christian school version."

"We use a video called 'No Apologies,' which is published by Focus on the Family," he said, according to Agape. "When they originally did the video, they did two versions – one for public schools and one for Christian schools. We use the public school version."

Plante said it's unfortunate the ACLU allowed "prejudice based on misinformation" to "direct their attack on the abstinence message."

He notes that since last September, the ACLU has been engaged in a national anti-abstinence campaign in which it has accused federally funded abstinence programs of being "based on ideology and religion."

"It is becoming clear that the ACLU is more interested in promoting their agenda than ensuring that teenagers receive a balanced message that includes abstinence," he said. "When the ACLU couldn't find any religious teaching in our programming, they bent the truth to fit their national platform."

Plante believes the Rhode Island ACLU saw a reference to the "No Apologies" video in Heritage's lesson plans and then, rather than checking the facts, simply made the assumption Heritage uses the Christian version of the video. However, he insists that is not true.

Plante pointed out the curriculum producer agreed to an "Assurance of Compliance" with federal standards prohibiting the integration of faith-based content in its educational materials.

"We strive to work with integrity," Plante said, according to Agape. "By law our programming and materials must not include sectarian instruction, prayer, worship or proselytizing. Any institution we work with must understand that neither party can address abstinence from a faith perspective during our presentation."

Heritage is calling on the ACLU to "retract its false claims in the same manner they were initially proliferated."

"The time has come to put ideology aside," Plante said, "and to begin a dialogue between all concerned with protecting children from the consequences of risky sexual activity."
Dutch Consider Legalizing Infanticide

Infanticide used to be taboo in the Western world. But the government of the Netherlands is currently considering what many consider to be unthinkable – the creation of legal standards for pediatric euthanasia.

According to the London Times, a committee will soon be set up to regulate the practice, which doctors have quietly been performing for years in the Netherlands. Shockingly, Dutch politicians have not faced the wrath of many domestic or foreign critics.

Only Italian Parliamentary Affairs minister Carlo Giovanardi has created a ripple of continental dissent to the new policy. "Nazi legislation and Hitler's ideas," he told an Italian radio program last week, "are re-emerging in Euope via Dutch euthanasia laws and the debate on how to kill ill children."

Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkeende was quick to react, saying the Nazi comparison was "unacceptable" and assuring his fellow Dutchmen that Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi maintained Giovanardi spoke only for himself, not the Italian government. Thus far, Giovanardi has refused to back down from his comparison.

The commission will likely issue regulations similar to the Groningen Protocol, a document drawn up in 2004 by the Groningen University Medical Center to establish internal guidelines for its euthanasia program that terminated the lives of 22 disabled newborns from 1997 to 2004.

According to Colleen Campbell, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Groningen Protocol declared a newborn subject to euthanasia if "his diagnosis and prognosis are 'certain,' his suffering is 'hopeless and unbearable,' and his qualify of life is 'very poor,' according to the child's parents and 'at least one independent doctor.'"

Though infant euthanasia is not yet a political issue in the United States, the arguments made by Dutch defenders of "compassionate" infanticide were echoed by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., in floor debate over a federal ban on partial-birth abortions in 2003.

Clinton took issue with visual aids provided by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.. The visual aids, she said, were "deceptive" because they showed a "perfectly formed" fetus. "Where are the swollen heads?" she asked while arguing in favor of legal partial-birth abortions, "Where are the charts with fetuses with vital organs such as the heart and the lungs growing outside the body?"

In the end, Clinton said, she could not support Santorum's legislation because it did not distinguish between healthy babies and those with "serious life-threatening abnormalities."

For his part, Sen. Santorum said he could not make such a distinction.
"What the senator from New York is asking me to do," Santorum said, "is separate those who are somehow not the way our society sees people as they should be today and put them somewhat a peg below protection than the perfect child."

"No," he continued, "I do not have an exception in this legislation that says if you are prefect, this cannot happen to you, but if you are not perfect, yes, this can occur. The senator is right. I do not."
Every campus to get birth-control nurse

In a move that has outraged parents, the UK yesterday unveiled a plan to place nurses in every school in England with the authority to help students arrange for pregnancy tests, morning-after pills and abortions – without alerting their parents – in order to improve "sexual health."

While the plan does nothing to change minors' access to birth control service – under-16s already have the right to contraception without parental consent – the attempt to place nurses in all schools with the authority and mandate to promote access to such services has drawn parents' ire.

Sue Axom, a mother-of-five who recently lost her court battle to change the law allowing girls under 16 to have abortions without their parents' knowledge, told the London Daily Mail, "This is undermining the role of parents. I believe this will encourage children to have under-age sex. It will put even more pressure on young girls as boys can say, 'It doesn't matter, you can get the morning-after pill.' I do believe it's beyond the pale if these services go to primary schools. I imagine we will see the abortion age going down and down."

Presently, 2,409 nurses serve groups of primary and secondary schools across England. Placing a full-time qualified nurse in every school will require a massive increase in the number of personnel.

Jack Scarisbrick, chairman of the charity group Life, said: "The Government is relentlessly pressuring young people to be even more sexually active. There are some school nurses who are not allowed to give out aspirin or put plasters on children without their parents' permission. But they can whisk a young girl off for an abortion without her parents' knowledge. This condones, if not encourages, promiscuity and sexual activity."

The UK continues to experience rising pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease rates, despite a $69.5 million government campaign promoting many of the same policies planned for the expanded nurse program. Already, clinics sited at secondary schools dispense condoms and morning-after pills to students and assist in arranging doctors' appointments.

An audit has revealed thousands of 13-year-old girls supplied the morning-after pill without parental permission and 2,400 girls 13 or under in England's primary system who received the Plan B contraceptive from the country's national health system.

Researcher David Paton, professor of economics at Nottingham University Business School, has studied the government's program and says there's no evidence making birth control and abortion available to adolescents helps lower the teen-pregnancy rate.

"There's a danger that it's encouraging youngsters to engage in sexual activity early," he said.

The new guidelines inform school officials nurses are the best people to provide these services to students because they are "able to assess need and prescribe appropriate medication and provide specialist contraception advice for the future." They are also described as the appropriate personnel to help students concerned with "issues of sexual identity."

Nurses are encouraged to provide confidential counseling "about emergency contraception, pregnancy or abortion" on and off campus and to communicate with students by text messaging or e-mail.

The policy is expected to be fully implemented by 2010.
Saturday, May 13, 2006


Roe attorney: Use abortion to 'eliminate poor'
In unearthed letter urged President-elect Clinton to 'reform' country

Posted: May 13, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006

Ron Weddington
A letter to Bill Clinton written by the co-counsel who successfully argued the Roe v. Wade decision urged the then-president-elect to "eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country" by liberalizing abortion laws.

Ron Weddington, who with his wife Sarah Weddington represented "Jane Roe," sent the four-page letter to President Clinton's transition team before Clinton took office in January 1993.

The missive turned up in an exhibit put together by the watchdog legal group Judicial Watch, which has been researching the Clinton administration's policy on the abortion drug RU-486, notes James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web.

Weddington told the president-elect: "I don't think you are going to go very far in reforming the country until we have a better educated, healthier, wealthier population."

He said the new leader can "start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country."

Weddington qualified his statement, saying, "No, I'm not advocating some sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that. The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can't afford to have babies.

"There, I've said it. It's what we all know is true, but we only whisper it, because as liberals who believe in individual rights, we view any program which might treat the disadvantaged differently as discriminatory, mean-spirited and ... well ... so Republican."

Weddington explained he was "not proposing that you send federal agents armed with Depo-Provera dart guns to the ghetto. You should use persuasion rather than coercion."

He points to President Clinton and his soon-to-be first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton as the "perfect example."

"Could either of you have gone to law school and achieved anything close to what you have if you had three or four or more children before you were 20?" he asked. "No! You waited until you were established and in your 30's to have one child. That is what sensible people do."

Later, Weddington took a shot at the "religious right."

"Having convinced the poor that they can't get out of poverty when they have all those extra mouths to feed, you will have to provide the means to prevent the extra mouths, because abstinence doesn't work. The religious right has had 12 years to preach its message. It's time to officially recognize that people are going to have sex and what we need to do as a nation is prevent as much disease and as many poor babies as possible."
Weddington then argued that with 30 million abortions up to that point since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, America is a much better place.

"Think of all the poverty, crime and misery ... and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario," he said. "We lost a lot of ground during the Reagan-Bush religious orgy. We don't have a lot of time left."

The lawyer also delved into biblical theology.

"The biblical exhortation to 'be fruitful and multiply' was directed toward a small tribe, surrounded by enemies," he argued. "We are long past that. Our survival depends upon our developing a population where everyone contributes. We don't need more cannon fodder. We don't need more parishioners. We don't need more cheap labor. We don't need more poor babies."

In his postscript, Weddington said: "I was co-counsel in Roe v. Wade, [and] have sired zero children and one fetus, the abortion of which was recently recounted by my ex-wife in her book, "A Question of Choice" (Grosset/Putnam, 1992) I had a vasectomy in 1969 and have never had one moment of regret."

The Weddingtons divorced in 1974.

Their client in the 1973 case, Norma McCorvey, recently attempted to challenge the ruling that struck down all state laws restricting abortion, arguing changes in law and new scientific research make the prior decision "no longer just."

Commenting on a 2004 court ruling dismissing the challenge, Sarah Weddington said those who filed it "got publicity but the publicity actually has been very helpful for those of us who believe the government should not be involved."

After announcement of McCorvey's challenge, Weddington received about two dozen offers to help defend the Roe decision.
Friday, July 7, 2006


10 million females illegally aborted in India
Parents desperate to bear son changing nation's demographics

Posted: July 7, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006

By conservative estimates, sex-selective abortion in India accounts for the termination of about 10 million females over the past 20 years.

"This is the world's biggest genocide ever," Chetan Sharma, a campaigner against female feticide, told the Daily Mail of London.

Chetan is founder of the Delhi-based group Datamation.

India's 2001 census shows a drop in the number of girls 6-years-old and under per 1,000 boys, to 927, compared to 962 in 1981.

"The future is frightening. Over the next five years we could see more than a million fetuses eliminated every year," said researcher Sabu George."At this pace we'll soon have no girls born in the country. We don't know where it will stop."

The problem of undervaluing women is an old one. In the 19th century, British leaders tried to eradicate female infanticide. Female feticide, however, is a new phenomenon brought about by advances in technology along with liberal attitudes toward abortion, which was legalized in India in 1971.

Kalpana Sharma, a columnist in The Hindu newspaper, says "anyone can walk into a government hospital and ask for an immediate abortion up to the 20th week of pregnancy, free, merely by saying there has been a failure of contraception."

India has a law barring medical personnel from from using prenatal diagnostic techniques to determine the sex of an unborn child. But the law is widely ignored because local officials are reluctant to fight the will of the people, the Daily Mail said.

Generally, in Indian society, woman who produce only daughters are pitied, in some cases abused and in many cases regarded as betrayers.

A woman who had nine abortions of females said it's important to have a son because of the family's big business.

"I want what my husband has built from scratch to go to his own blood," she said.

It's not just the assets of having a son that motivate feticide – carrying on the family name or business and taking care of elderly parents. The practice of providing a dowry to the grooms' family creates an enormous financial burden on parents who have a daughter.

Kalpana Sharma said the dowry demands today are nothing short of extortion. Many families sell off land and are forced into debt they can never pay off.

The affluent also are choosing feticide, as evidenced by the fact that states with the lowest ratios of girls to boys also are the most prosperous, such as Punjab, Gujarat and Haryana.

Affluent women, the analysts say, believe they will have a better standard of living if they have only sons.

Land inheritance also is an issue, as daughters now are entitled legally to an equal share of land when their parents die.

Many unqualified technicians are operating ultrasound machines throughout the country, finding it relatively easy to get a license. While there are 25,770 officially registered pre-natal units in India, one doctor estimates as many as 70,000 ultrasound machines are in operation.

Long-term consequences of the gender imbalance include the rise of prostitution and sex trafficking and the danger to women's emotional and physical health from repeated abortions.

The Indian government is taking steps to impose regulations on the registered ultrasound clinics throughout the country, but Chetan Sharma, of Datamation, says that local officials are guilty of corruption and will simply continue to turn a blind eye.

As WorldNetDaily reported in 2004, the Bush administration withheld a $34 million payment from the United Nations Population Fund to China over the issue of forced abortions.

The communist government of China maintains, at least in some areas of the country, a one-child policy sometimes enforced through a policy of forced abortions. It is believed China performs some 10 million involuntary abortions a year. The abortions disproportionately affect female babies.

Facing a critical shortage of women that could leave millions of men without wives, China is trying to convince its populace of the value of girls, who have been systematically killed during birth or after as a result of the one-child limit on most families.

Beijing has developed a five-year plan to correct the alarming disparity in the numbers of males and females in the country.

First exposed by WND in 1997, what has come to be known as "gendercide" in China has resulted in the deaths of at least 50 million girls.
Monday, July 31, 2006

Abortionists investigated for possible baby murder
Infant discovered in biohazard bag, clinic closed as autopsy under way

Posted: July 31, 2006
8:35 p.m. Eastern

© 2006

The dead body of a baby who probably was born alive and then killed is just "business as usual" for the nation's abortion industry, a spokesperson for the Florida Right to Life effort told WorldNetDaily.

"This is the result of legalized abortion in our nation. There are very few protections for the mother, and basically no protections for the unborn children," Linda Bell said.

She was talking about an investigation being done now by the Miami-Dade County medical examiner and police in Hialeah into the death of a baby whose body was found in a biohazard bag at an abortion clinic in the South Florida city.

The discovery came after someone, perhaps a clinic worker, according to police, called 911 anonymously to report that a baby had been born alive, and was killed.

A lawyer for the owner of "A Gynecologists Diagnostic Center" immediately issued a statement that no crime was committed, and an 18-year-old had had an abortion without complications.

"My clients run an abortion clinic. It's a legal business," Regina DeMoraes-Millan told television station WFOR-TV in Miami-Fort Lauderdale. "Right now police are just investigating a 9-1-1 call."

Police and the coroner, however, have a little higher level of concern, and ordered the clinic closed while their investigation determined whether any criminal charges would be filed.

"In 24 years in law enforcement, I have never seen a case like this,"" Hialeah Det. Tony Rodriguez told the station.

Authorities report their investigation includes the potential for homicide charges, as well as evidence tampering. The baby reportedly was 12 inches long and weighed up to three pounds, an age and weight at which premature infants can survive outside the womb.

Witnesses reported to police the 18-year-old woman, whose name wasn't released, went to the clinic at about 22 weeks of pregnancy for an abortion, then returned the next day complaining of pain. Clinic workers said the doctor wasn't available and she would have to wait.

The witnesses reported that she was taken into a recovery room, where she gave birth to the child she thought had been aborted the day before.

"Employees cut the umbilical cord, put the baby in a bag and walked away with it," Hialeah Lt. Ralph Garcia said.

After the anonymous 9-1-1 call, police responded but found no body. Then they returned a second time, following a second call, and found the body in the biohazard bag. Detectives say it's possible clinic workers moved the body during the first visit, to avoid detection, according to

Bell said her organization and others concerned about life repeatedly have tried to get basic health clinic rules applied to abortion businesses, without success to date.

"Unfortunately, that's the mentality of this country, that the abortion business is not subject (to rules)," she told WorldNetDaily. "This is the result of that."

She said the death was tragic, but she couldn't call it a murder until the autopsy results were released because that is a legal term.

An autopsy was done over the weekend, with results pending that could impact Hialeah Police Chief Rolando Bolaco's closure order for the clinic.

A report by the Miami Herald said state records show the clinic is one of a group owned and run by the same people. The records show the owner is Belkis Gonzalez of Miramar, who also was listed as the owner of the Miramar clinic that was closed in 2005 after several workers were accused of practicing medicine without a license.

The state Department of Health concluded that one worker, Roberto A. Osborne, failed to treat a woman after giving her an abortion in 2000 and he pleaded guilty in 2005 to performing medicine without a license, a third-degree felony.

The woman in that case ended up in an emergency room, where doctors performed a hysterectomy, the health department said.

Bell also noted that she was not surprised, because the Miramar clinic at one point promoted a cleaning woman to medical assistant so she could assist with abortions. Bell said the woman later pleaded guilty to nursing without a license.

One of the witnesses in the ongoing case is the baby's mother.

"We were able to locate the mother of this child. ... She, in fact, reiterated that she did come to this clinic to have an abortion, and she gave birth to the baby while waiting for the doctor to arrive," Lt. Garcia told WTVJ-TV.
FDA Eases Limits on Morning-After Pill

Aug 24, 12:11 PM (ET)


WASHINGTON (AP) - Women may buy the morning-after pill without a prescription - but only with proof they're 18 or older, federal health officials decided Thursday. The Food and Drug Administration ruling culminated a contentious three-year effort to ease access to the emergency contraceptive.

Girls 17 and younger still will need a doctor's note to buy the pills, called Plan B, the FDA told manufacturer Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. (BRL)

The compromise decision is a partial victory for women's advocacy and medical groups which say eliminating sales restrictions could cut in half the nation's 3 million annual unplanned pregnancies. Opponents have argued that wider access could increase promiscuity.

The long delay had ensnared President Bush's nominee to head the FDA. On Thursday, two senators said they would lift their blockade, making confirmation of Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach as FDA's commissioner likely next month.

Talking to reporters Thursday aboard Air Force One as Bush headed to Kennebunkport, Maine, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, asked for his reaction, said Bush "appreciates that the FDA did an exhaustive review, that they recognized the critical distinction between minors and adults and the risks a drug like this could pose."

Noting the restrictions the agency attached to its approval, Perino added, "I'm sure the FDA will follow through on that and make sure these important conditions are established and enforced."

The pills are a concentrated dose of the same drug found in many regular birth-control pills. Taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, a woman can lower the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent. If she already is pregnant, the pills have no effect.

The earlier it's taken, the more effective Plan B is. But it can be hard to find a doctor to write a prescription in time, especially on weekends and holidays. Hence the push to allow nonprescription sales.

Barr has said it hopes to begin nonprescription sales of Plan B by the end of the year. The pills will be sold only from behind the counter at pharmacies - so the pharmacist can check photo identification - but not at convenience stores or gas stations.

There isn't enough scientific evidence that young teens can safely use Plan B without a doctor's supervision, von Eschenbach said in a memo.

But Barr did prove that over-the-counter use is safe for older teens and adults - and licensed pharmacies are used to checking for proof of age 18 before selling tobacco and certain other products, von Eschenbach wrote in explaining the agency's age cutoff.

"This approach should help ensure safe and effective use of the product," he concluded.

Plan B's maker was disappointed that FDA imposed the age restriction and pledged to continue working the agency to try to eliminate it.

"While we still feel that Plan B should be available to a broader age group without a prescription, we are pleased that the Agency has determined that Plan B is safe and effective for use by those 18 years of age and older as an over-the-counter product," said Bruce L. Downey, Barr's chairman.

The age restriction remains controversial even inside FDA, agency drugs chief Dr. Steven Galson told The Associated Press Thursday. Galson has acknowledged overruling his staff scientists' opinion in 2004 that nonprescription sales would be safe for all ages.

"Let me be frank, there still are disagreements," Galson said in an interview. "There were disagreements from the first second this application came in the house."

But, "I'm convinced adolescents are a different group, they require special analyses, sometimes special data," he added.

As a condition of approval, Barr agreed to track whether pharmacists are enforcing the age restriction, by, among other things, sending anonymous shoppers to buy Plan B. FDA said Barr is to conduct that formal tracking at least twice in the first year of sales and annually thereafter, and report stores that break the rules to their state pharmacy licensing boards.

But Barr also will conduct a national education campaign to raise awareness of emergency contraception, among both women and health providers.

The two-pill pack of Plan B today costs from $25 to $40; Barr hasn't said if it will raise the price. Planned Parenthood, already a main dispenser of the pills, expects some insurers to continue covering prescription sales for those who seek the drug that way. But which way is cheaper depends on a woman's insurance.

A Barr spokeswoman estimated that pharmacists dispense about 1.5 million packs a year.

Nine states - Washington, California, New Mexico, Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Vermont - already allow women of any age to buy Plan B without a doctor's prescription from certain pharmacies. Proponents of those pharmacy access programs believe that minors won't see any change in those states, because the pharmacist already technically writes a prescription.

The FDA approved prescription-only sales of Plan B in 1999, and the quest to sell nationwide without a doctor's note began in 2003. That year, the agency's independent scientific advisers overwhelmingly backed nonprescription sales for all ages, and FDA's staff scientists agreed.

But higher-ranking officials rejected that decision, citing concern about young teens' use of the pills without a doctor's oversight. Barr reapplied, asking that women 16 and older be allowed to buy Plan B without a prescription. Then, last August, the FDA postponed a final decision indefinitely, saying the agency needed to determine how to enforce those age restrictions.

FDA's handling of Plan B sparked a firestorm: Critics charged that political ideology had trumped science; a reproductive-rights group sued to force FDA to settle the issue; and congressional auditors concluded the agency may have made decisions without reviewing all the evidence.

Still, nationwide nonprescription sales were widely consider a doomed issue until last month, when the FDA reversed itself and said it would reconsider if Barr agreed to an age 18 restriction. That surprise announcement came on the eve of a Senate committee hearing on whether to confirm von Eschenbach as FDA's new head.

On Thursday, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and Patty Murray, D-Wash., said they would lift their roadblock to his full Senate confirmation.

"While we urge the FDA to revisit placing age restrictions on the sale of Plan B, it is real progress that millions of American women will now have increased access to emergency contraception," they said in a joint statement.

Proponents hailed the victory but had hoped for more.

"While I am glad that the drumbeat for a return to a science-based FDA has had some positive impact, this decision still represents a compromise, one that could have the unintended consequence of hurting young women's health," said Dr. Susan Wood, who resigned as FDA's women's health chief to protest the agency's 2005 delay.

But opponent Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said Plan B's wider availability could give women a false sense of security, since it isn't as effective as regular birth control. Wright also worries that adult men who have sex with minor girls could force the pills upon them.

The FDA said men 18 and older will be able to buy the pills without a prescription.
Abortion records reveal cases of suspected child rape, incest
Kansas attorney general wins battle over files that may conceal felonies

Posted: November 2, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2006

Phil Kline

The attorney general in Kansas has won his courtroom battle over the medical records for dozens of abortions in his state, and says the documents appear to have concealed cases of child rape, illegal late-term abortion, rape by force or fear, incest, child sexual abuse and other crimes.

Attorney General Phil Kline had waged a months-long courtroom battle against the abortion industry, which sought to keep the 90 case records concealed. But the records now are being reviewed by investigators after being forwarded to Kline from a district court judge who edited them to hide the identities of the women involved.

"Those medical records are being reviewed by criminal prosecutors and investigators in my office," Kline said yesterday. "I want to remind Kansans that women and children are not and never will be under investigation – only abortion doctors, confirming doctors, and rapists are under investigation.

"Also, I have never sought the women's identities. I do not need their identities. Their privacy is protected by a protocol my office established with the district court judge to remove the identifying information of the women from the very beginning," he said.

But he noted that state records confirm in 2003 alone, 78 girls under the age of 15 had abortions in Kansas. By law, that amounts to 78 cases of sexual assault on a child, or worse.

"We have prayed and worked toward this day, and now we are hopefully optimistic that criminal charges will be brought against those responsible for concealing heinous crimes against children, and for the illegal killing of viable babies who should have been protected under the law," said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, a pro-life organization with offices in Kansas.

"We anxiously await the day that we can see George Tiller and other members of the Kansas abortion cartel behind bars where they belong," Newman said.

Kline's pursuit of the records began shortly after he was elected in 2002, and he noticed a peculiarity of laws in most states and jurisdictions.

"Nobody has been willing to enforce the abortion laws against Planned Parenthood," he told WND during a recent interview. And some of the situations just screamed for attention.

For example, when there are abortions performed on children as young as 10, by law and by definition there has been a sexual assault on a child. In Kansas a person under 16 legally cannot consent to sex, and abortions cannot be performed past 22 weeks. However, those cases simply weren't being reported, he said, even though state law requires officials who are in a position to know the circumstances to report such crimes.

He started working, watching the situation, developing evidence, and assembling arguments. Soon he found that, just like in many other cases ranging from assault to homicide, he needed the medical records to pursue his investigation into allegations of wrongdoing at Planned Parenthood and George Tiller's Women's Health Care Services.

He requested, and Judge Richard Anderson agreed he needed to have access to, records in 90 abortion cases across the state. So Anderson granted the subpoenas.

"Without access to the medical records, how is the attorney general going to make a reasonably informed judgment as to whether the records do or do not contain evidence of a crime?" the judge reasoned.

But it was as if the world fell in, and Kline soon discovered the reason by the opposition was so fierce.

Under federal rules, Planned Parenthood – the abortion industry leader -- must follow state laws regarding abortion, notification and other issues if it is to get tax money each year from American citizens – an estimated $227 million this year alone, Kline said.

So any prosecutor who is looking into situations that potentially could have legal implications, such as late-term abortions that don't meet the specified state guidelines, or those abortions administered on underage girls where no assault report is filed, the industry's reaction is going to be serious because of the potential threat to the cash flow.

The Kansas Supreme Court ruled last February that Kline was entitled to the records, but it wasn't until now that they were forwarded. Officials say the abortion businesses turned the records over to the Shawnee County District Court Aug. 5, and they were sent to Kline Oct. 24.

"If there was not a reason for this investigation to continue, it would cease. The investigation is continuing," said Kline.

Kline said now with access to the records, there may be evidence of child rape, failure to report child rape, performing illegal late-term abortions, rape by force or fear, failure to report suspicion of child sexual abuse, incest, making false information and others.

Kline also is in a tough re-election battle on which WND reported earlier, where his opponent, Johnson County District Attorney Paul Morrison, has indicated he might not pursue the investigation launched by Kline.
California Tapes Show Abortion Centers Tell Teens to Deceive Parents

by Steven Ertelt Editor
November 1, 2006

Sacramento, CA ( -- The organization that is working to get California voters to approve a parental notification initiative on the state ballot has released the transcript of taped phone calls showing abortion centers urging teens to lie to their parents. The tapes reveal how abortion facilities help minor teens cover up instances of statutory rape.
The Yes on 85 campaign released transcripts of five secretly recorded conversations to abortion centers by a caller identifying herself as a 13-year-old girl with a 22-year-old boyfriend seeking an abortion without the knowledge of her parents.

Under California law, the girl would be the victim of statutory rape and her boyfriend would have committed a crime that abortion businesses should report to authorities.

The tapes reveal that abortion center employees repeatedly try to help the girl find ways around reporting the crime -- and offer suggestions on how the teen can keep her parents in the dark, with no concern for her status as a victim of sexual abuse.

They only warn her that her parents might find out -- if they get a call from the hospital.

"That is why proponents of Proposition 85 have urged voters to approve the Parents' Right to Know & Child Protection Initiative, which would protect young girls from this fate," says Mike Byrne of the Yes on 85 campaign.

"Opponents have argued that young girls would be placed in danger if Proposition 85 passes, but these tapes show just the opposite," he said. "The real danger is that child predators can take girls as young as 12 to an abortion clinic, and the clinic will go out of its way to keep secret not only the abortion, but also the crime."

The transcripts of the tapes that follow are among 93 tapes available on the Yes on 85 website. The tapes are numbered for easy reference.


(1) "Don't mention your partner is that old"

Antioch, California, Tape No. 546

CALLER: Okay. Well do you know -- I'm just really worried about all this because like, well I'm going to be 14 in March, and my friend told me that you guys would have to tell my parents I'm getting an abortion. But my boyfriend's 22. Is that old enough to take care of it and they wouldn't have to tell anybody about anything?

CLINIC: Oh, God. Your boyfriend's 22?


CLINIC: Umm. Yeah. Hold on, please.


CLINIC: No, you'll be fine. It's just going to be a problem if you let them know that your partner is over 21, because that is against the law.

CALLER: Why is it against the law?

CLINIC: Because you, you know, it's not -- if he's over 21 and you're under 18 and you're having intercourse it's just -- you don't know about that law in California?


CLINIC: Yeah. You need to get informed about that. So just don't let them know, but you don't have to have your parents know. You don't have to have them know that you're getting a procedure in Concord, okay?

CALLER: All right.

CLINIC: So you're protected by the right of privacy, but don't mention your partner is that old, okay?

(2) "When you come in here, you cannot disclose what your partner's age is."

Santa Maria, California, Tape No. 307

CALLER: And you guys wouldn't have to tell my parents or anything? My boyfriend is 22, and he's a great guy. It's just my parents hate him, and they can't find out at all.

CLINIC: When you come in here, you cannot disclose what your partner's age is.

(3) "As long as you don't tell us, everything's fine."

San Luis Obispo, California, Tape No. 379

CALLER: I'm just really scared because my friend told me that, well, I'll be 14 in March, and she said that my parents would have to know. But my boyfriend's 22. Could he just sign whatever, and you guys wouldn't have to tell anybody?

CLINIC: Well, we don't need to know how old your boyfriend is first of all.

CALLER: Oh, okay.

CLINIC: -- because it sounds like we would have to report it.

CALLER: What do you mean report it? Who would you have to report it to?

CLINIC: Because he's over 18 and you're 14. So as long as you don't tell us, everything's fine. And we don't need your parent's consent, and we don't need his consent either.

(4) "So if you can hide that from your mom and your dad then you're fine."

San Bernardino, California, Tape No. 163

CALLER: Well, I just can't let my parents know at all.

CLINIC: That's why I'm letting, that's why I'm telling you, you -- it's kind of hard for girls to hide it from their parents because you have to take medication and you have to --

CALLER: Oh. Well, so what should I do?

CLINIC: I mean, we'll be more than happy to help you here, but I'm just trying to let you know what to watch out for because you don't want your parents to know.


CLINIC: And you will be going home with paperwork.

CALLER: Oh, okay.

CLINIC: Okay? So if you can hide that from your mom and your dad then you're fine.

(5) "They don't say that you're at Planned Parenthood having an abortion."

Encinitas, California, Tape No. 158

CALLER: Oh. But you guys won't tell anybody?

CLINIC: No. But the thing is, in case of an emergency since you're a minor, we had to send you to the hospital, we need to notify your parents, but we don't --

CALLER: But they can't find out at all.

CLINIC: Well, the thing is, in cases of an emergency and we had to send you to the hospital, the hospital will notify your parents.

CALLER: Well, why can't my boyfriend just take care of it?

CLINIC: Well, the thing is, if you are a minor under 18 by law the hospital has to notify your parents regardless if you're there with your boyfriend, if you're there with your grandmother. If you're a minor under 18 and something was to happen to you, automatically wherever you go they have to contact your parents. They don't say that you're at Planned Parenthood having an abortion. They just say you're at the hospital for, you know. I just want you to be aware of that.
The Washington Times


Partial-birth deceit
Published November 11, 2006


Amid the election reaction on Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard two cases concerning a federal ban on partial-birth abortion. It is encouraging at the least that the court even agreed to hear the cases, considering that in 2000 a 5-4 court struck down a Nebraska ban on this gruesome procedure. As was her habit, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor cast the deciding vote. Could the court be in the process of reversing itself? Let's hope so.
But first we should remind readers just what happens during a partial-birth abortion, since so many news outlets tend to use as technical language as possible. For instance, while you won't find any description of the procedure in the New York Times story on the hearing, here's how The Washington Post put it: "It generally involves the breech delivery of a fetus, followed by the collapsing of its skull to permit removal." Contrast that with how the conservative National Review described it in a recent editorial: "Partial-birth abortion involves the partial delivery of a child, the puncturing of its skull, the removal of its 'intracranial contents,' and then the delivery of a dead baby or extraction of its parts." Both are technically accurate, but you decide who's trying to fool whom.
As Congress found during its meticulous investigation, partial-birth abortion is never necessary to save the life or health of the mother. Opponents dispute that of course, but even lawyer Priscilla Smith, arguing against the federal ban, had to admit when questioned by justices that there were no statistics to verify her claim that the reduction in risk to the mother from the procedure was "significant." It's important to note that Congress did make an exception when a woman's life is at risk.
If the court does reverse itself, it will likely come down to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote a dissent in the 2000 case. Justice Kennedy is a marginal defender of abortion rights as outlined in Roe v. Wade, but his dissent on the partial-birth abortion procedure was clearly based on moral principle. The bad news is that during oral arguments, Justice Kennedy questioned whether the federal law was defined narrowly enough to ban only partial-birth abortion. He also wondered if a woman seeking an exemption from the ban from a judge would be able to receive one in enough time. Some might interpret Justice Kennedy's questions as an attempt to find an excuse to retreat from his earlier position. On the other hand, perhaps he's just covering all his bases.
Of course we shouldn't assume that either Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Samuel Alito would vote to uphold the ban. If they do, and if Justice Kennedy sustains his moral dissent, then we can finally put an end to this barbaric and unnecessary procedure called partial-birth abortion.
Half of abortions are repeats for women
Most were over 30 and were using contraception at the time, study finds

Updated: 5:44 p.m. MT Nov 21, 2006

WASHINGTON - About half of all U.S. women who had abortions in 2002 had undergone at least one previous abortion, according to a study released Tuesday.

Women who had repeat abortions tended to be over age 30 and to have more children, and most were using contraception at the time, the report from the nonprofit Alan Guttmacher Institute found.

The Institute used several different surveys by both the government and private groups to come up with its estimate. For instance, in one 2001-2002 government survey, 48 percent of women having abortions said they had undergone a previous abortion.

“This suggests that we need to do a better job helping all women better prevent unwanted pregnancies, so they can avoid having to decide whether to seek abortions or raise children they are not prepared for,” said Rachel Jones, a senior research associate who helped lead the study.

Most of the women seeking abortions were poor or low-income, and 60 percent had at least one child already.

The study also found that one in three U.S. women have given birth to a baby they had not planned for, and one in 10 have had more than one unintended birth.

The Institute, named for the founder of the Planned Parenthood Foundation of America, said women getting abortions should be counseled on how to use contraception effectively, but this opportunity is being missed.

'Wall of separation'
“The 'wall of separation’ that the federal government has erected between family planning and abortion services is, paradoxically, leading to more abortions,” said Sharon Camp, the Institute’s president and chief executive officer.

“These policies interfere with the ability of abortion providers to ensure continuity of care for their patients by guaranteeing that, following an abortion, every woman has an appropriate contraceptive method and is able to use it consistently,” Camp added in a statement.

For example, the Institute said, Colorado, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania will not give any clinic state family planning funding if it has any relationship with an abortion provider.

And federal Title X-funded family planning programs must maintain a “wall of separation” between their programs and abortion providers.

Half of pregnancies are unintended
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about half of the approximately 5.4 million pregnancies in the United States each year are unintended. More than 4.1 million babies are born in the United States each year.

The CDC has also found that 98 percent of women of reproductive age have used one or more contraceptive methods and 73 percent of women aged 15 to 44 years visited a doctor or clinic for family planning services in 2002.

The CDC said 854,122 legal induced abortions were reported to it in 2002, a number that has been fairly stable after falling steadily from 1996 to 2001.

Globally, 46 million women have abortions each year, with the highest rates in Romania, Cuba and Vietnam and the lowest rates in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland.
More women have abortions as it loses stigma
By Celia Hall, Medical Editor
Last Updated: 1:44am GMT 28/11/2006

Women are finding it more acceptable to have an abortion than to drift into an unplanned pregnancy, the head of Britain's leading abortion agency said yesterday.

Ann Furedi, the chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), said one women in five was now childless at the age of 45 and an increasing number were making the choice not to have children at all.

Ms Furedi said there had been a shift in public opinion about parenthood. The stigma of abortion had diminished but there was now concern about being a poor parent. "Parenting is considered to be very important and is taken seriously these days," she said. "The idea of just drifting into unplanned motherhood is seen not to be a good thing and you could argue that among many groups of people in society abortion is seen as a more responsible response to being a victim of uncontrolled fertility," she said.

advertisement"The bottom line is that it's now normal for women in their 40s simply to decide not to have children," said Ms Furedi at the launch of an Ipsos Mori poll into attitudes to abortion.

Abortion figures continue to rise year on year. Latest figures show that there are about 165,500 abortions for British residents a year.

The BPAS says that the opportunity to get pregnant is greater as more women are sexually active for longer, with no intention of starting a family. Contraception could fail and couples would sometimes fail to use contraception.

She said that because more women in the peak of their fertility, in their early 20s, were having sex frequently in the context of a relationship, the chance of uninvited pregnancy was high. "They simply don't want to have a child at that time of their lives." Almost a third of women using contraception choose the Pill. Of these, eight per cent can expect to get pregnant each year. Rates of condom failure are even higher with 15 women out of every 100 becoming pregnant.

The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,000 adults found that slightly fewer adults agreed that "abortion should be made legally available for all who want it" than five years ago. In the survey in May, 59 per cent agreed with the question compared with 62 per cent in 2001.

Asked if a woman should not have to continue with a pregnancy if she wanted an abortion, 63 per cent agreed and 18 per cent disagreed.

The survey was commissioned by BPAS, which says the law should be changed to make abortion easier.

Life, the anti-abortion lobby group, said women should not make choices at the expense of unborn children. A spokesman said: "Society must respect the right to life of all human beings, even those who are small and vulnerable and possibly inconvenient."
Tuesday, December 12, 2006

'Nurse' accused of handing out fatal abortion drug
Woman could face jail term if convicted in Alabama prosecution

Posted: December 12, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006

A nurse practitioner whose license was suspended by the state of Alabama earlier after she was accused of illegally giving medical abortions without a doctor's supervision now is facing the possibility of time in jail and fines if convicted on three specific counts.

Janet F. Onthank King, 58, whose license was suspended along with that of abortionist Deborah Lyn Levich early in 2006, has been arrested by authorities in Jefferson County, Ala., on two counts of "knowingly or recklessly performing abortions as a non-physician."

The Summit Medical Center was closed after a nurse was accused of illegally giving out a fatal abortion drug

According to state Attorney General Troy King, the woman also faces one count of falsifying business records at Summit Medical Center by fabricating entries about the sterilization of medical "equipment."

Authorities say she faces up to six months in jail and a fine of $1,000 on each count.

The abortion business itself was shut down when its license was suspended by the state Department of Public Health at the same time, and later closed permanently through a bankruptcy court proceeding, officials said.

State prosecutors said they presented evidence to a Jefferson County grand jury on November 15, resulting in three indictments returned against the woman.

The charges stem from the death last February of an unborn baby whose mother was given the abortion chemical RU-486 at the business.

State prosecutors launched their investigation after the state board released a report that found "egregious lapses in care, including non-physicians performing abortions, severely underestimating the gestational age of a fetus, failure to appropriately refer or treat a patient with a dangerously elevated blood pressure, and performing an abortion on a late-term pregnancy."

The now-closed procedure room where abortions were performed

"We thank God and the State of Alabama for taking meaningful steps to protect the public from this shoddy abortionist," said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue. "All too often states cover up (these) crimes."

"We know that unsafe conditions and an arrogant 'above the law' attitude are pervasive in the abortion industry, which cares more for the financial profits than for the welfare of the women they exploit," Newman said. "We pray other states would follow Alabama's example and launch honest investigations into abortionists and their 'chop shops' that are operating outside the law."

The child, only a few weeks from birth, was delivered, dead, about a week after the mother was given the chemicals, authorities said.

Reports said the child was "reported" as being six weeks old, when in fact, the mother had been eight months pregnant.

The nurse practitioner gave the woman the dangerous RU-486 abortion drug which is approved for use only through the sixth week of pregnancy.

"That baby was viable and healthy prior to her encounter with King, and should have had the protection of Alabama's law banning post-viability abortions, which is a Class A felony," Newman said. "We promise to look into why there has been this apparent miscarriage of justice."

Reports say the woman went to the abortion business on Feb. 20, and was given an ultrasound by a non-physician in violation of state law. She was told she was six weeks pregnant, critics charged.

"Non-physicians" then gave her the chemicals, and six days later the woman delivered a six-pound, four-ounce baby – dead.

"In my 26 years of pro-life work in Birmingham, I know scores of injured women and four who died soon after receiving the services of area abortion clinics," said pro-life activist Jim Pinto.

"This just goes to show that abortion mills will lie, falsify records, give abortions without doctors, botch abortions, and never think they will ever be held accountable, and unfortunately that is the case in many states," said Newman.

OR just recently argued that an abortion business in Huntsville, Ala., should be closed down after the state Health Department cited the location for violating 10 state laws.

Officials reported the Alabama Women's Center for Reproductive Alternatives was found to have been forwarding after-hours medical emergencies to non-medical personnel, routinely failing to document the gestational age of the unborn baby, and releasing abortion patients without following the mandatory 20-minute recovery period, according to a statement from Operation Rescue.

These are just the latest in a string of abortion businesses that have been cited – or even closed down – when they are inspected for their compliance with state laws and medical regulations.

Operation Rescue is one of the leading pro-life Christian groups in the country, and it recently made headlines by purchasing and closing down an abortion clinic in Wichita, Kan.

In addition to that abortion business closure, more than a dozen other abortion businesses in Illinois, Ohio, California, Alabama and Florida have been closed over a variety of issues, including workers without medical licenses performing medical procedures, the misuse of drugs, babies allegedly killed after being born alive, and a disappearing abortionist.

They include:

In Aurora, Illinois, sheriff's deputies hauled away "medical equipment" and office supplies as a clinic run by abortionist Louis S. Myers was closed down on orders from the landlord, who evicted the business. The property owner, who ran the abortion business for years himself before retiring, said the new business operator simply disappeared.

Ohio state regulators this fall uncovered a dozen health code violations, including a serious situation that endangered the life of a patient, and shut down an East Side Cleveland clinic.

A clinic in Omaha, Neb., also was closed because the land was purchased from underneath the business and the owners couldn't find another facility to rent.

A facility in Birmingham, Ala., was closed because of a suspended license.

One business in Montgomery, Ala., was closed when authorities found the abortionist didn't have hospital privileges.

A business in Hialeah, Fla., was closed by an investigation into allegations a baby was born alive, then killed and placed on the roof of the building to avoid detection by police.

Five clinics owned by a Florida abortionist when his license was suspended all were closed, although several of those reopened later.

And another case involved a business in Daytona Beach, Fla., where the abortionist said he didn't want to meet the required rules.
Friday, January 5, 2007

Pro-life students sue schools over censorship
Complaints filed against administrators for thwarting protected speech

Posted: January 5, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling

© 2007

High school students from across the nation, claiming they feel like second-class citizens after being denied First Amendment rights by school administrators for quietly participating in an annual pro-life demonstration, are fighting back in court.

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund have filed complaints against a number of school districts on behalf of students who participated in Stand True Ministry's "3rd Annual Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity."

"Students don't shed their rights at the schoolhouse door," said ADF-allied attorney Tom Marcelle of Albany, N.Y., who serves as co-counsel in M.G. v. Bush and Shenendehowa Central School District, the most recent filing. "The Supreme Court, on more than one occasion, has said that the First Amendment applies to students. As long as the speech is respectful and not disruptive of the school, the students are allowed to engage in it," Marcelle told WND.

Approximately 1,400 middle school and high schools participated in the national pro-life day of silence. Many passed out leaflets between classes, wore pro-life t-shirts and duct tape over their mouths with the word "Life" written on it.

But the peaceful observation left a sour taste in the mouth of some administrators and several students are paying the price for being so "controversial."

Gowana Middle School, Clifton Park, N.Y.: A 13-year-old eighth grade student at Gowana Middle School took extra precautions to ensure that he would be able to participate in the Oct. 24 event. More than a week prior to the day, his mother courteously phoned Shenendehowa Central School District's superintendent to notify the administration of her pro-life son's plans to distribute leaflets containing text advocating against abortion, wear a message-bearing t-shirt and duct tape over his mouth as symbolic expression. The boy even went so far as to obtain special permission from each of his instructors so they would not feel that he was disrupting class with his silent expression.

On the morning of Oct. 24, the boy passed out leaflets on the bus, and several more students who were impressed with his efforts decided to join him in peaceful protest.

However, Gowana Middle School's principal Jill Bush stopped the pamphlet distribution in its tracks when she summoned the students to her office that morning. She insisted they turn their clothing inside out, remove the tape from their mouths and toss it into the garbage along with their fliers. Principal Bush then made a public announcement over the intercom informing students that they would not be permitted to take part in the activities and demanded anyone who had received a flier to immediately forfeit the literature to school officials.

One of the students politely informed Bush of their First Amendment right to peacefully express their views. She agreed to allow them to remain silent without the red "life" tape, but said they would not be allowed to tell anyone why.

"Students shouldn't be thinking about issues like that at your age," she reportedly said.

The administration has previously allowed others to engage in peaceful forms of expression, regardless of controversy. In the past, the middle school students have been allowed to distribute literature and wear clothing with questionable statements.

"Historically, [Gowana] students have worn shirts ridiculing the president, ridiculing the war in Iraq and poking fun at religious beliefs," Marcelle told WND. "She can't just determine that Roe. v. Wade and the country's abortion policy are off limits."

Penn Cambria High School, Cresson, Pa.: A 16-year-old female sophomore also participated in Stand True's "3rd Annual Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity." Along with a group of her peers and outside of instruction time, she silently distributed fliers containing text advocating against abortion.

Before classes began, the librarian told her to obtain permission to copy fliers from an administrator. Principal Kathy Nagle was not in her office, so she approached Assistant Principal Ernie Fetzer and was granted permission to hand out fliers during non-class time.

But during third period classes, Nagle called the students into her office to forbid them from distributing leaflets or wearing tape over their mouths because she said it was too controversial and "might start a fight."

Objecting to the anti-abortion content, she rescinded the assistant principal's approval to pass out leaflets and insisted that fliers must be authorized by her two weeks prior to an event.

Attorneys with the ADF filed a complaint claiming Nagle censored student speech "because of its content and viewpoint, selectively targeting her speech for prohibition … thereby violating the equal protection clause of the Fourteen Amendment."

Millbrook High School, Winchester, Va.: A senior named Andrew Raker distributed leaflets and wore a t-shirt that said "Some Choices Are Wrong" and "Abortion Is Forever" to school. He also wore a symbolic red armband displaying the word "silenced." The following day, principal Joseph Swack objected to the content of his speech, forbidding him to pass out fliers because other students might consider them to be religious.

The principal also said Raker would be required to cover or remove offensive clothing if students complained. Raker said he was interested in starting a "pro-life" club, but Swack expressed concerns that students might also begin a "pro-choice" club.

Raker called the Alliance Defense Fund, and attorney Matthew Bowman handled his case.

"Andrew called us and we wrote a letter to the principal explaining to him that he can't restrict speech on this basis," Bowman told WND. "The school wrote back to us and denied that the principal said any of this. They said that he could wear his t-shirt and start a club, but he can't hand out literature. They announced new rules that are nowhere to be found in the student handbook or on the school or school district's website."

Northeast Senior High School, Pasadena, Md.: The previous cases are still pending; however, the Alliance Defense Fund managed to help reverse a decision made by school officials to ban Hilary Humphrey from distributing and posting fliers promoting the "3rd Annual Student' Day of Silent Solidarity" on campus.

Northeast Senior High School policy states that students and student groups are allowed to promote activities after obtaining permission from school officials. Despite the rules protecting student speech, they deemed Humphrey's anti-abortion leaflets to be "inflammatory" and refused to allow them. She contacted ADF, and attorneys sent a letter to the school officials, informing them of the student’s rights under the Constitution. As a result, the school agreed to allow Humphrey and other pro-life students to promote their event.

ADF attorney Matthew Bowman believes that some of the cases develop because Christians have been historically discriminated against, and others develop because of an intense fear of Christianity.

"There is, in many cases, a belief that Christian pro-life students are second class citizens," Bowman told WND. "In others, school officials are just ignorant about the law and all they know is this culture of intimidation that makes them react with horror to any Christian or traditional value speech coming out of the mouths of students."

Brian Kemper is president of Stand True, the organization that began "Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity."

"It's such a great thing that students are willing to stand up for things they believe in," Kemper told WND. "Especially when, for the most part, it is such an uncool thing to do. We are seeing an upswing of more students who are pro-life. It is such a positive message – standing up for life is a positive thing."

More information and photos can be found on Stand True's Silent Day website.
Friday, January 26, 2007

Abortion victim's funeral delayed
Baby, breathing after procedure, found dead a week later

Posted: January 26, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Bob Unruh

© 2007

A funeral for a baby girl found dead at a Hialeah, Fla., abortion business has been postponed, after plans had been made and two ministers were prepared to officiate, because the state still may need the body for evidence in what may yet end up being a criminal case over her death.

"It's a baby case,'' Assistant State Attorney Herbert E. Walker III told The Miami Herald. "No charges have been filed and the investigation is ongoing. It would not be prudent to dispose of any potential evidence before the investigation's done."

An autopsy showed the little girl was born alive, but died from "extreme prematurity," but the circumstances surrounding the death have prompted authorities to call for a criminal prosecution.

The autopsy, which was obtained by the front-line pro-life organization Operation Rescue, and [url=]posted online[/url], was done by Satish Chundru, an associate medical examiner of the Miami-Dade Medical Examiner Department.

It reported the mother had had three pregnancies, "one abortion, one miscarriage and this birth," referring to the body of the girl found in a decomposed state in July. Police had been summoned to the business after an 18-year-old went for an abortion, but the baby was born while she waited, and she observed the little girl breathing before a business worker came and put the baby in a biohazard bag.

An anonymous tipster told police about the situation, but officers found nothing during their initial search. The tipster later called to report the body had been stashed on the roof of the clinic, but had been returned to the building, and it was then found by officers.

''Any party with any legitimate interest in the case can ask that the body be held pending investigation for an unspecified amount of time,'' said Walker, who earlier prosecuted the parents of a 5-month-old girl who died of malnutrition, a case in which the body was preserved for 2 years during the investigation.

The Herald report said the plans for the memorial service for Shanice, as her mother named her, included songs, a butterfly release, and the participation of two ministers and was to have happened this weekend.

"I thought there would be a celebration for this little girl and we were all preparing for it and to have her rest in peace," said Nick Silverio, who set up the Gloria M. Silverio Safe Haven for Newborns Foundation in memory of his late wife.

He had worked to set up the service, and arrange for the burial, and had planned for the Rev. Daisie Overman of Riverside Baptist Church and retired Catholic Bishop Augustin Roman to officiate.

But prosecutors say the body must remain in the medical examiner's office until the investigation is finished.

At issue yet are medical report statements that the baby was 22 weeks developed, which would be within the 24-week window for legal abortions in Florida. Yet witnesses say the baby was breathing on her own at the abortion business, which would bring into application the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act, a requirement that infants who are alive following abortion procedures deserve the full protection of the law.

The autopsy report said the manner of the baby's death was "natural" and the cause was "extreme prematurity," and the apparent conflict typifies the unresolved morality of the abortion industry, according to Cheryl Sullenger, spokeswoman for Operation Rescue.

She told WND earlier that the fine line between a baby that legally can be killed and a baby alive in her mother's arms is unsupportable.

"On one hand we want to protect and save innocent babies. On the other hand we're going to kill them at the same time," she said.

"My feeling on it is this. If that baby was born alive and they deprived that child of a moment of that baby's life, that's murder. We don't know how long that baby could have survived," she said.

"We know no emergency care was given, in fact the opposite," she said. "Everything was done to make sure that baby was dead."

The case developed after the 18-year-old reported to the A Gyn Diagnostics abortion business to complete an abortion, officials said. The autopsy report said the baby girl with black hair and brown eyes apparently was healthy at the time of her birth. But the report noted that babies at 22 weeks have no historical chance of survival.

Police reports have indicated it was Belkis Gonzales, the abortion business owner, who took the baby from a clinic procedure room and dumped her in a biohazard bag. Police later found the body in that biohazard bag.

A lead investigator in the police department earlier told WND he believes there will be charges in the case.

"My goal is to see that charges are filed," said Hialeah Deputy Chief Mark Overton. "The evidence reflects that this was a homicide. We're moving forward with that mindset. I believe our evidence has indicated (and) I think we have probable cause to bring charges."

A police search warrant in the case earlier confirmed the scenario. "The staff began screaming that the baby was alive; at which time Ms. Belkis Gonzales cut the umbilical cord, threw it into a red bag with black printing. Ms. Gonzales then swept the baby, with her hands, into the same red bag along with the gauze used during the procedure," the search warrant said.

At the time the body was found, a lawyer for the abortion business issued a statement that no crime was committed, and an 18-year-old had had an abortion without complications.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007

'Child-rape cases being ignored'
Michigan sidewalk counselor says authorities won't respond to assault concerns

Posted: January 30, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Bob Unruh

© 2007

Michigan law seems clear on the issue: "The pregnancy of a child less than 12 years of age … is reasonable cause to suspect child abuse and neglect have occurred." But a sidewalk counselor who has worked in front of a Kalamazoo abortion business for 15 years says it's being ignored.

It's the same situation WND described in an earlier report about abortion clinics not reporting "services" provided to underage girls, despite state laws requiring those reports. A pro-life activist says it simply boils down to the money being paid the businesses.

In the latest situation, Ann Norton told WND that she's documented a number of cases of underage girls being taken to the abortion business, has contacted child protection officials, police, the district attorney, and even the state attorney general's office, with a complete lack of response.

"I've stood on my head, trying to get action," she said. "This is something that needs to be brought out into the open."

WND's earlier report said the failure by abortion businesses to follow mandatory reporting laws can conceal myriad assaults. Former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline fought a 2-year legal battle against two abortion businesses in order to get records he believed would document cases of assault on a child.

Within days of getting those records, he had forwarded to local prosecutors information regarding 25 such incidents. He had wondered how, in 2003 for example, there could be 78 abortions on underage girls without a single case of assault on a child.

But the stakes are extremely high for the abortion industry: If clinics are found to not be following state law, they would be ineligible for taxpayer funding, which in recent years has reached $280 million nationwide.

Norton said the conspiracy of silence around such assaults is leaving her frustrated in trying to protect young children. She cited one case in 2005 in which an 11-year-old girl was taken to the Kalamazoo abortion clinic. Norton talked with the girl's mother, collected witness statements, sworn affidavits, and other evidence, but still was unable to get anyone to investigate the attack that resulted in her mother bringing her to an abortion clinic.

"She [the girl's mother] confirmed the girl was 11 years old. The poor girl was in the back, crunched into the fetal position, scared to death," Norton recalled.

Norton asked about the girl's situation, and her mother responded that, "I'm not going to have any blankety blank babies in the house."

"We know the girl did test positive, and we feel strongly that she did have the abortion," Norton told WND. But after police were called and child protective services were notified, nothing happened.

Norton was told that child protective services reported it couldn't act without a police report, and police reported they couldn't act unless they knew the location of the alleged child rape.

Michigan authorities did not return a message left by WND asking for a comment on the case.

But Norton noted state law calls for an age of consent of 16 years, and the law's assumption that a pregnancy in a child is "reasonable cause" to believe there was child abuse.

Because there has been no response from authorities, on the recent anniversary of Roe. vs. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court opinion that discovered the "right" to abortion, she assembled her documentation, called a news conference and waited, and waited, and waited.

No one showed up.

"It's like knocking your head against a wall," Norton told WND.

She said authorities confirmed that Planned Parenthood did not file a report on the abortion given to the 11-year-old, and police and child protective services officials have told her that is what is needed to start an investigation.

"Here in Kalamazoo, I don't know what is going on," she said. "Everything is hush-hush." She said her work even brought her into contact with the state attorney general's office, but again nothing was accomplished.

She said one investigator in the state office told her, "Everyone's been told to shut up," and without that testimony authorities "can't do anything."

She said she assembled case files on nearly two dozen cases, including in many situation names and locations.

Mark Crutcher, the chief of Life Dynamics, a recently told WND it's a common problem, and pro-life activists should move forward with their information.

"The fact that these family planning facilities are in clear violation of child abuse or statutory rape reporting requirements creates an environment for us to demand that their funding be immediately cut off," said Crutcher.

A pregnancy in an underage girl is evidence of sexual abuse, and "any healthcare worker who has contact with a pregnant underage girl has an obligation to initiate a report to the state," said a Life Dynamics report.

"If you're not following state law, you're not entitled to Title X funds," Newman told WND. "As soon as you defund abortion clinics, they dry up and blow away."

Abortion industry lawyers repeatedly have claimed that their clients follow the law, including a special case in Kansas recently where a local prosecutor held a news conference to say late-term abortionist George Tiller had followed those reporting requirements, even though a case that had been brought against him didn't make that accusation.

Crutcher said if there's a pregnancy in an underage girl, and the health care provider fails to meet the state's mandatory reporting law, the victim is released – often – right back into the hands of the predator.

In an earlier Life Dynamics project, the group arranged for an adult volunteer to pose as a 13-year-old and call every Planned Parenthood clinic in the United States. She posed as that young teen, pregnant by her 22-year-old boyfriend, and asked for help because she didn't want her parents to know. Almost without exception the recorded responses from the clinics advise her not only how to obtain an abortion without her parents' knowledge, but also how to protect that adult boyfriend who is guilty in any state of statutory rape on child.

"While many clinic workers can be heard on the tapes telling the caller that this situation was unlawful and that they were legally mandated to report it to the state, 91 percent of these facilities still agreed to illegally conceal it," Life Dynamics reported. "So it's no wonder that abortion clinics are refusing to cooperate with law enforcement efforts to investigate child abuse. In Kansas, abortion clinic representatives have even gone so far as to state in published reports that they will not comply with the state's mandatory reporting laws."

He said those who have been hurt in abortions need to come forward with their complaints, to get the investigations on track.
Court ponders if abortion kills a human

Posted on Apr 12, 2007 | by Erin Roach
ST. LOUIS (BP)--In a rare 11-judge hearing, a federal appeals court is considering whether physicians in South Dakota should be required to tell women seeking an abortion that they will be terminating "the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being," and observers say the outcome could reverberate nationwide.

Oral arguments began April 11 before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, which must decide whether an injunction imposed by a federal judge on a law enacted by the South Dakota legislature in 2005 was appropriate. The law would have required doctors to tell women verbally and in writing that abortion ends a human life, could cause depression and suicide, and ends a woman's constitutionally protected relationship with her unborn child.

"The South Dakota statute requires abortion doctors to enunciate the state's viewpoint on an unsettled medical, philosophical, theological and scientific issue, that is, whether a fetus is a human being," U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier in Rapid City said in issuing the injunction days before the law would have taken effect.

Schreier is still deciding the constitutionality of the law while the 8th Circuit decides whether the injunction is legal. In October, a three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit decided 2-1 that the law should remain blocked because it supplements factual information with a value judgment, as The New York Times described the judges’ ruling. But the full appeals court agreed to reconsider based on an appeal by the state.

Harold Cassidy, the chief counsel for several pregnancy care centers in South Dakota that have intervened in the case, said it's the first time a federal appeals court will address the question of whether an abortion terminates the life of a human being and the fact that an abortion ends a woman's relationship with her child. Cassidy also said it's the first time pregnancy care centers are directly pitted against an abortion clinic.

The care centers have complained repeatedly that the Planned Parenthood facility in Sioux Falls -- the only abortion provider in the state -- fails to provide meaningful information about abortion procedures, Cassidy said. The legislature passed the law to require that the doctors disclose relevant information, but Planned Parenthood says the law violates doctors' free speech rights.

"There is no medical data that determines when a fetus becomes a human being," Sarah Stoesz, chief executive of the three-state Planned Parenthood affiliate that filed the suit, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, adding that the law is meant to intimidate women into halting plans for an abortion and intimidate doctors into refusing to perform the procedure.

The Alliance Defense Fund filed a friend-of-the court brief in March on behalf of the Family Research Council.

"Anyone truly concerned about the interests of women would support a woman having access to all the information necessary to make a fully informed decision," ADF senior counsel Jordan Lorence said. "Instead, the abortionists argue adamantly to restrict the information women have about the lives of their pre-born babies."

ADF said that since abortionists stand to profit financially from a woman deciding to abort her child, a conflict of interest should prevent abortionists from speaking on behalf of women in court.

"Someone who has a financial stake in performing abortions should not be allowed to represent women in a case challenging women’s right-to-know laws," Lorence said. "Because an abortionist may earn a profit from women who abort their pre-born children, Planned Parenthood should be disqualified from representing the interests of women."

Cassidy emphasized the need to make an expedient ruling in the case, which isn't expected for several months.

"Every week, women are losing their rights in South Dakota, every week that this injunction is in place," Cassidy said in court, according to the Post-Dispatch.

The newspaper said the decision of the full appeals court to conduct the latest hearing "is seen by both sides as a sign that it may overrule the three-judge panel and allow the law to go into effect."

"We are concerned," Stoesz of Planned Parenthood said.

Larry Long, South Dakota's attorney general, said the appeal stemmed from the one dissenting view on the three-judge panel, which noted that the information doctors were required to disclose was factual. Long said the legislature had defined "human being" to mean a member of the species homo sapiens, which is indisputable, The New York Times reported.

Long said, according to the Associated Press, that depending on how the appeals court rules, "lots of other states could require physicians to tell patients the truth, which clearly they don't know."

Planned Parenthood fears that if the law is upheld, there is a "strong possibility that copycat legislation will be adopted in other states." If nothing else, the case could prompt pro-life legislators in the United States to draft more carefully their laws on abortion to avoid courts striking them down, Long said.

The case is Planned Parenthood v. Gov. Michael Rounds.
The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.

Supreme Court Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act
Wednesday, April 18, 2007


The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.

The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

Click here to read the full Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

The opponents of the act "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

The decision pitted the court's conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.

It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how — not whether — to perform an abortion.

Click here to read the Supreme Court case.

Abortion rights groups have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although government lawyers and others who favor the ban said there are alternate, more widely used procedures that remain legal.

The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.

More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Wednesday's ruling.

Six federal courts have said the law that was in focus Wednesday is an impermissible restriction on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The law bans a method of ending a pregnancy, rather than limiting when an abortion can be performed.

"Today's decision is alarming," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent. She said the ruling "refuses to take ... seriously" previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.

Ginsburg said the latest decision "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."

She was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.

Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method — dismembering the fetus in the uterus — is available and, indeed, much more common.

In 2000, the court with key differences in its membership struck down a state ban on partial-birth abortions. Writing for a 5-4 majority at that time, Justice Breyer said the law imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to make an abortion decision.

The Republican-controlled Congress responded in 2003 by passing a federal law that asserted the procedure is gruesome, inhumane and never medically necessary to preserve a woman's health. That statement was designed to overcome the health exception to restrictions that the court has demanded in abortion cases.

But federal judges in California, Nebraska and New York said the law was unconstitutional, and three appellate courts agreed. The Supreme Court accepted appeals from California and Nebraska, setting up Wednesday's ruling.

Kennedy's dissent in 2000 was so strong that few court watchers expected him to take a different view of the current case.,266724,00.html
"Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting partial-birth abortion, a procedure in which a mostly delivered and fully developed baby has its brains vacuumed out."

The Washington Times

Carnage: Two versions
By Cal Thomas
Published April 25, 2007

Last week, there were two stories about carnage -- the tragedy at Virginia Tech and the Supreme Court's decision on partial-birth abortion.
At Virginia Tech, 32 people were killed. The worst of the pictures were kept from us, but we saw enough, as bleeding students and faculty members were carried out of the buildings. There were no pictures released of what some witnesses described as blood and gore on the floors and walls of the classrooms where Seung-hui Cho performed his evil deeds. No dead bodies were shown.
Also, by a narrow 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting partial-birth abortion, a procedure in which a mostly delivered and fully developed baby has its brains vacuumed out. The court reached its decision even though the law lacks a "health" exception, which has been a legal loophole large enough to drive any abortion through and which has fueled abortionists who claim the pregnant woman's mental or some other "health" is in danger, thus "justifying" the abortion.
While pro-lifers welcomed the decision (it is the first to prohibit an abortion procedure since Roe v. Wade in 1973), the language used by Justice Anthony Kennedy in his majority opinion is inconsistent.
In the past, Justice Kennedy has voted to uphold Roe v. Wade and has opposed other attempts to restrict abortion, but his opinion in the partial-birth case may open the door to further regulations on abortion... or not. What Justice Kennedy wrote illustrates that the court is not yet ready to overturn Roe: "Where it has a rational basis to act, and it does not impose an undue burden, the state may use its regulatory power to bar certain procedures and substitute others, all in furtherance of its legitimate interests in regulating the medical profession in order to promote respect for life, including the life of the unborn."
Justice Kennedy seems to be saying if abortionists can use means to kill a baby other than by partial birth, it's OK with him. And what's this about promoting "respect for life, including the life of the unborn"? Abortion on demand has produced precisely the opposite of Justice Kennedy's stated objective. It has eroded respect for life to the extent that madmen shoot up schools and street thugs kill for pleasure.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists called the court's decision "shameful and incomprehensible." What is shameful is the systematic and legal destruction of more than 46 million babies in the United States since 1973, according to the pro-choice Alan Guttmacher Institute. What is incomprehensible is a society that would allow for the destruction of a generation, depriving the nation of talent and unknown contributions.
There is an inverse connection between the carnage at Virginia Tech and the carnage that is abortion. With Virginia Tech, we saw pictures of the bloody wounded. Survivors told us the rest. With abortion, especially the partial-birth kind, the most we get are drawings. The full horror of what happens during the procedure and the failure to inform women about it and its alternatives has never been shown on television, or published in newspapers.
The reason is that big media wishes to promote policies associated with the Virginia Tech carnage -- chiefly more gun control laws -- but does not promote the policies associated with abortion, so the public is kept largely in the dark.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas remain consistent in their opinions that the Constitution contains no language allowing abortion, or prohibiting states from regulating it. They have been in the minority, but perhaps not for much longer. The 5-4 decision shows that a crack has developed in the abortion wall. That's why the next election and the next justice appointed will be critical.

Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist.
April 25, 2007

Offshore abortion women's group is given licence again

David Charter, Europe Correspondent
An “abortion ship” is planning to sail to countries where the practice is illegal and take women out to sea for terminations after the Dutch Government lifted restrictions banning it from international waters.

Rebecca Gomperts, the director of Women on Waves, told The Times: “We have just received the licence and there are some restrictive conditions but, yes, we are going to prepare a new campaign, that is for sure.

“We are in touch with women’s organisations in several different countries. There are still three countries where abortion is illegal in Europe but there are also invitations from Argentina and some other South American countries.”

Under the terms of its licence, the group is able to sail under the Dutch flag in international waters and hand out “abortion pills” for women up to seven weeks pregnant, causing them to have a miscarriage.

The group had been banned effectively since 2004, when restrictions were imposed by the previous, conservative-leaning Dutch Government. But the election of the Labour Party (PvdA) into the ruling coalition led to a relaxation of the rules.

The group was said to be the catalyst for a change of the law in Portugal to allow abortion until ten weeks into pregnancy after an international incident in 2004. During an 11-day stand-off, the Government ordered a navy blockade of Lisbon to stop the group from collecting women to have their pregnancies terminated. The Dutch Government asked for permission for the boat to dock but was refused. “It sent a clear signal to the EU that the law in Portugal was not an acceptable way to treat women,” said Ms Gomperts, a medical doctor.

The abortion boat visited Ireland in 2001 and Poland in 2003. In 2004 the Dutch Ministry of Health ruled that it could operate only within a 25km (15mile) radius of a named Am-sterdam hospital, effectively banning the ship from operating outside the Netherlands.

Women on Waves blames the third member of the Dutch coalition, the small Christen Unie Party, for thwarting its attempt to have the permissible period of abortion that it can provide extended from seven to twelve weeks. It has also vowed to fight another limitation, that a partner hospital must be found in the region from where its clientele come.
Level of abortions reaches record high of 200,000 a year

More than 200,000 women had abortions last year, the highest number ever, figures show today.

Almost 4,000 of the 201,173 procedures carried out in England and Wales were on girls under 16, the legal age of consent for sex.

The total rose by almost four per cent last year on 2005. The increase is being blamed on a crisis in contraception services.

Lambeth had the highest rate of abortions among under-18s - 44 for every 1,000 women having a termination. Across London, 24 in every 1,000 under-18s had an abortion last year.

The lowest rates in the capital were in Westminster and Harrow, where 15 per 1,000 women under 18 had terminations.

The overall abortion rate has been rising steadily since 2002 and last year almost two per cent of women aged between 15 and 44 had a termination.

The figures, released by the Department of Health, show more abortions were carried out earlier in a pregnancy, reflecting government investment and the target of a maximum wait of three weeks.

Critics said women were finding it more difficult to access contraception services in the NHS as money earmarked for sexual health clinics was diverted to offset debts.

A higher proportion were carried out using medication instead of surgery.

One in 12 terminations was carried out at more than 13 weeks' gestation and 136 procedures were carried out where the foetus was 24 weeks or older.

Abortions over 24 weeks' gestation are only allowed in exceptional circumstances, if there is a substantial risk the child would be born with serious handicap or the mother's life was in danger.

The peak age for terminations last year was 19, with 35 in every 1,000 women that age undergoing the procedure.

Abortions among young girls rose, with 135 carried out on under-14s, 1,042 on girls under 15 and 3,990 on those under 16.

The proportion of under 18s having abortions last year rose slightly compared with 2005.

Almost nine out of 10 abortions were paid for by the NHS and eight out of 10 were for single women.

Anne Weyman, chief executive of the Family Planning Association, which provides contraception and abortion services, said: "The fact that there has been such a percentage rise in the numbersof women having an abortion since 2005 isn't surprising given that contraceptive services are in crisis and at their lowest point for many years.

"Services are being cut and clinics are closing up and down the country.

"In England, the average amount spent on each woman's contraception is about £11. Some primary care trusts have admitted they spend just 18 pence.

"This is unbelievable and wouldn't be tolerated if it happened in another part of healthcare.

"This dire situation will continue to get worse unless primary care trusts and the Department of Health take urgent action."

Health minister Caroline Flint welcomed the fact more women were having abortions earlier in their pregnancy, when the risk of complications is reduced.

"However, the NHS needs to work harder to reduce the demand for abortions by improving access to contraception," she added.

"Primary care trusts have received an extra £40 million to improve access to contraceptive services."
Amnesty International Becomes a Pro-Choice Organization

In a move that has upset many Christians, the human rights group Amnesty International has abandoned its position of neutrality on abortion and will now actively campaign for pro-choice measures.

The organization’s executive committee decided in April to support access to abortion – "within reasonable gestational limits” – for women in cases of rape, incest or violence, or where the pregnancy jeopardizes a mother’s life or health. Delegates gave the decision overwhelming support at its mid-August conference in Mexico.

Amnesty International has been working in countries where rape has been used as a weapon of war, and in nations where women seeking abortions can be severely punished, BBC News reports. Kate Gilmore, AI’s executive deputy secretary-general, said in a statement:

"Amnesty International’s position is not for abortion as a right but for women’s human rights to be free of fear, threat and coercion as they manage all consequences of rape and other grave human rights violations.”

Christian organizations have threatened to withdraw support from the group in the wake of its decision on abortion.

Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, told the National Catholic Reporter that AI had "betrayed its mission.”

He wrote: "To selectively justify abortion, even in the cases of rape, is to define the innocent child within the woman as an enemy, a ‘thing’ that must be destroyed.”

In England, Catholic Bishop Michael Evans, a 31-year member of AI, said he was resigning from the organization.

And in the U.S., Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, said: "Amnesty International was founded to protect human rights, yet it now treads upon the most fundamental human right, the right to life. To fail to protect the right to life renders suspect one’s advocacy of any other human right.”

© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.
Full Abortions Shown On Spanish Television - First In History - (Warning source article and links lead to graphic and disturbing images of abortions-

For what is probably the first time in history, a television network in Spain has shown an abortion on national television. The video, shot during a hidden-camera exposé on Spain's abortion industry, shows a nurse injecting deadly poison into the fetus through the vagina of a pregnant woman, who then expels her dead child, about five months old. The doctor immediately covers the body. "The baby is born dead. His cradle: a trash can," says the commentator in voice-over on the tape. An abortion of the baby of a second woman is also shown. After showing the second abortion, the commentator remarks. "As soon as the baby is born, the doctor must cover it up. No one looks at it. No one examines it." Later, the undercover reporter examines one of the dead children. "Hands, feet, a face. The cadaver of a human being," the commentator notes. The doctor, a woman, remarks that the baby is 21 weeks old, but says she "never" looks at the bodies of the fetuses. "Never?" asks the undercover reporter, who is posing as a doctor looking for work at the clinic. "Never," the woman repeats "Never, never, never again!" When asked why, the doctor says "Because I don't like it." "Of course, you are a mother, I assume, right?" the reporter asks. No answer is given. All of the patients preparing for abortions were over five months pregnant, "a period in which the fetus is completely formed and in possession of all of its senses," notes the voice-over. One of the patients is only 15 years old. The doctor explicitly acknowledges in the video that many of the patients have no valid reason for their abortions. However, she assures the reporter that the clinic has a psychiatrist who will automatically sign the necessary forms to authorize it because of "psychological" need as required under Spanish law. The report, "Asi se aborta en España" (This is How Abortions are Done in Spain) was made by Intereconomia TV, a national network in Spain, in which the reporter posed as a doctor seeking a job doing abortions at El Bosque. As soon as he tells the receptionist why he's there, she rushes him in to see the owner. The clinic is in desperate need of personnel, explains the commentator. In the video, the owner explains that they used to have the nurses do the abortions, although the law will no longer allow this. He blithely describes the procedure as it was done by nurses, telling the undercover reporter (who is posing as a job applicant) that it is only necessary to "wait until the woman expels it (the fetus), and to take it out by its rear end. If the placenta doesn't come out they call me." He assures the undercover reporter that if if that happens "you grab the pincers...and 'pin pin pin' and that's it," waving his hands around with a casual look on his face. Following the broadcast of the report, an anonymous source brought the remains of a twenty-two week old fetus chopped into several large pieces to the offices of Inteconomia. Upon receiving the remains, one station employee told the Spanish media that they thought the remains were a "joke". "We thought it was made of plastic."The workers at Intereconomia, shocked at what they were seeing, tried to hide it from a fellow employee who had recently lost a child. They filmed the remains, which have been displayed widely in the Spanish media. They then called the courthouse to ask what they should do with them. They were told to call the police.Horcajo stated that he was told by police that "on many occasions, an abortion practice is to cut up the child inside of the mother so he can come out more easily." Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue, noted the importance of the event. "I believe that if we have a straight up debate on abortion, on exactly what abortion is, exactly what it does to the baby, the detrimental effects on the mother, the pro-life movement wins hands down one hundred percent of the time," he told LifeSiteNews. "The debate in Europe is phenomenally important. It's pivotal in the crusade to end abortion worldwide, and I would hope that this would begin to spill over into American politics."Asked why the American media has never shown such images to the public, Newman said that "there is an active coverup within the media to deny the actual truth about what goes on during an abortion," attributing the situation to liberal, pro-abortion bias.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.