Abortion news

[Soldier4Christ]

Petitions to Investigate Abortion That Killed Mentally Disabled Girl Certified

Wichita, KS (LifeNews.com) -- Enough petitions have been turned in to prompt a grand jury to investigate Wichita, Kansas abortion practitioner George Tiller, who killed a mentally disabled teenager in an a legal late-term abortion last year. That's the ruling of the Sedgwick County Elections Office, which certified the petitions Tuesday.

Pro-life advocates and family members of Christin Gilbert filed 7,700 signatures with the county to use a Kansas law which allows citizens to petition the local government to call a grand jury investigation.

Only 2,850 signatures were needed but the county certified 6,186 valid signatures, more than twice as many as were necessary.

The county now has 60 days from the April 7 petition filing date to convene the Grand Jury. The District Attorney's office will be responsible for appointing a special prosecutor.

The petition campaign became necessary when the Kansas Board of Healing Arts (KBHA), which regulates doctors and abortion practitioners, refused to bring forth any charges against Tiller in the January 2005 death of the 19 year-old girl.

Gilbert, who had Down syndrome, was taken by her parents from Texas to Kansas for the late-term abortion. After Gilbert suffered from complications from the abortion, Tiller's staff contacted 911 but asked that an ambulance not turn on its lights or sirens to not raise suspicion.

The autopsy report indicated Gilbert died from complications from the abortion.

Troy Newman, the head of Operation Rescue who has been helping collect signatures, said, “It is time for an impartial investigation of Tiller by those who are not politically, professionally, or socially associated with him."

“I know that the members of Christin’s family that we are in contact with are relieved that the process is proceeding," he said.

Though her parents took her for the abortion, another member of Gilbert's family said she would not have wanted the abortion.

Newman's group and Kansans for Life, a statewide pro-life organization, accused the KBHA of issuing a biased ruling in the case because many of the members of the board are influenced by pro-abortion Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Tiller.

“There was a strong appearance of impropriety during the KSBHA investigation,” Newman added.

The Kansas medical board determined that Tiller complied with state laws and health care standards in his treatment of Gilbert, despite eventually killing her.

Cheryl Sullenger, of Operation Rescue, explained that Tiller sent Gilbert to a local hotel after the abortion "even though her condition was worsening" following the botched abortion.

David Gittrich, state development director for Kansans for Life, suggested using the law to help obtain justice for Gilbert.

[Soldier4Christ]

Louisiana Senate passes abortion ban;
bill would take effect if Roe is overturned


BATON ROUGE, La. (BP)--The Louisiana Senate passed a bill April 26 that would ban nearly all abortions once Roe v. Wade is overturned or a human life amendment is added to the U.S. Constitution.

The bill, which provides for an exception to save the mother's life, passed by a vote of 30-7, and now heads to the state House. Unlike an abortion ban that passed South Dakota earlier this year, Louisiana's ban includes a "trigger" provision that would prevent it from taking effect immediately.

An amendment to the bill that would have provided exceptions for rape and incest failed on a 17-20 vote.

"[Louisiana] has a right and a duty to protect every human being, whether they are four weeks old, nine months old or 100 years old," Sen. Ben Nevers, a Democrat and the bill's sponsor, told senators, according to The Times Picayune. "... I would never want to hurt a victim of rape or incest. We must do all that we can to protect human life."

It is not known if Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco, a Democrat, would sign the bill. She did tell reporters that she would sign "some kind of abortion bill," The Times-Picayune said. She added that she liked the bill's trigger provision, which is designed to avoid a lawsuit.

The bill refers to the baby as an "unborn child." Doctors who perform abortions could be fined up to $100,000 and jailed up to 10 years.

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down its Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide in 1973. Of the nine members currently on the court, five are on record as supporting Roe.

[Shammu]

Colorado Mourns 39th Anniversary of America's First Abortion Law

To: National & State Desks

Contact: Leslie Hanks, Colorado Right to Life V.P., 720-394-8946

DENVER, April 24 /Christian Wire Service/ -- One of America's oldest pro-life organizations, Colorado Right to Life (CRLC), mourns the loss of the millions of innocent babies killed in their mother's womb, since the passage of the nation's first abortion law signed on April 25, 1967. "Our nation is owed an apology for our state's role in starting the abortion holocaust," said Diane Hochevar, CRLC President.

The organization applauds South Dakota for passing the first law restoring legal protection to pre-born babies. "As the state that started the abortion holocaust, we should have been the first to lead America back to protecting all human life, from fertilization through natural death," said Colorado Right to Life V.P., Leslie Hanks. "South Dakota citizens should be very proud of their elected officials."

Former Governor Dick Lamm, who as a freshman representative, sponsored the Colorado law in 1967. Not content with orchestrating the attack on the vulnerable pre-born, Lamm expanded his ideology to include the elderly and medically vulnerable with his "duty to die" speech a number of years ago.

"As America begins to ponder the significant loss of love and talent our nation has discarded as medical waste, it should remember that when Colorado made the tragic error of allowing pre-born lives to be destroyed through abortion we began a culture of death which has led to all human life being greatly devalued, " said Hanks.

CRLC maintains that Terri Schiavo and others like her might not have been in such jeopardy had Colorado rejected the taking of innocent life for cases of rape, incest and the mother's health back in 1967. "When babies aren't safe in their mother's wombs, we are all in danger." notes Hanks.

Colorado Right to Life will continue its efforts to build a culture of life in its home state and encourages every state to follow the lead set by South Dakota. "We must reject the taking of innocent life and embrace our founding documents," said Hochevar. "The Declaration of Independence boldly proclaims that 'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'"

Sorry I can't post the link because of advertisment.

[Shammu]

Amnesty International Considers Pushing Enforcement of Abortion as Human Right
Ominously proposes punishing "abuses of sexual and reproductive rights by private persons, organizations"

By John-Henry Westen

NEW YORK, April 25, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Amnesty International (AI) has proposed actively fighting against the right to life for unborn children by using its resources to promote a so-called 'right to abortion'.  In proposed changes to its Sexual and Reproductive Rights Policy, the organization has asked members to comment on proposals around AI's abortion position by May 20, 2006.

In its Sexual and Reproductive Rights (SRR) Consultation Kit, AI includes a "Draft Policy statement on Sexual and Reproductive Rights."  The policy includes the demand that "Governments must refrain from denying or limiting equal access to sexual and reproductive health services."  Adding ominously, "they must act with due diligence to punish abuses of sexual and reproductive rights by private persons, organizations and other non-state actors."

The draft policy also seeks to hamper the right of health care workers to disassociate from abortion services.  "The right of individual health care professionals to object on grounds of conscience to providing certain information and services does not absolve them or the health care system for which they work from taking immediate steps to ensure that the necessary treatment is given without delay," says the draft.

In another document reviewing "key" issues regarding sexual and reproductive rights, AI quotes a UN representative who suggests denying abortion constitutes "violence against women".  The review states, "Former UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women, Radhika Coomaraswamy, has stated that 'acts deliberately restraining women from using contraception or from having an abortion constitute violence against women by subjecting women to excessive pregnancies and childbearing against their will, resulting in increased and preventable risks of maternal mortality and morbidity.'"

The AI International Council is already decidedly in favour of promoting abortion as can be deduced from the language they use.  The International Council calls for a consultation on the question of abortion, which "should enable AI to take an informed decision as to the organization's position - should it choose to do so - on the question of whether a woman's right to physical and mental integrity includes her right to terminate her pregnancy, subject to reasonable limitations, and of whether abortion should therefore be legal, safe and accessible to all women."

The plan is to decide by the end of 2006 on adopting a position on three aspects of abortion:
- "decriminalization of abortion";
- "access to quality services for the management of complications arising from abortion";
- "legal, safe and accessible abortion in cases of rape, sexual assault, incest, and risk to a woman's life"

The document notes that "all other decisions related to possible AI positions on the issue of abortion" would be taken to the 2007 International Council Meeting.

AI then asks its members the following questions:
Level 1
1. Do you have specific comments, reactions or questions about the Draft Policy statement on Sexual and Reproductive Rights?
Level 2
1. Should Amnesty International adopt a policy on any of the three aspects of abortion or should we maintain our current policy (which states: Amnesty International has not adopted a position on whether or not women have a right to choose to terminate unwanted pregnancies...)?
Level 3
2. Should the International Executive postpone any decisions on the three aspects of abortion until the fall, next spring or the next International Council meeting, to provide more opportunity for us to give input?

[Soldier4Christ]

Georgia Teen Abortion and Pregnancy Rates Continue to Decline in 2004

Atlanta, GA (LifeNews.com) -- Abortion and pregnancy rates for teenagers in Georgia have gone down for another year, the state health department has announced. The news is more evidence that abstinence education and pro-life efforts to tell women about pregnancy centers are working.

The new numbers cover from 1994, when Georgia led the nation in teen pregnancy rates, and 2004, the latest year with available data.

The teen abortion rate fell from 12.3 per 1,000 women aged 10-19 in 1994 to 7 per 1,000 in 2004. The teen pregnancy rate also fell from 50.1 pregnancies per 1,000 young women to 34.7 in 2004.

‘‘This decrease is good news,’’ Dr. Stuart Brown, director of the state Division of Public Health, told AP. ‘‘It shows that the prevention programs and education conducted through DPH and our partners are working.’’

But that's not all that's working in the southern state.

In November the state health department announced that abortions were down more than 5 percent from 2003 to 2004. Abortions performed in Georgia fell by a stunning 5.3 percent from 2003. There were 32,708 abortions in 2004, down from 34,545 in 2003.

Since their peak in 1990, abortions in Georgia have dropped 17 percent.

Officials with Georgia Right to Life credit a television campaign they began three years ago targeting DeKalb and Fulton counties, where an estimated 75 percent of abortions in the state occur.

The ads feature the 1-800-395-HELP phone number operated by national pregnancy centers organizations Care Net and Heartbeat International. When women with an unexpected pregnancy call the number, they are referred to local pregnancy centers that provide various forms of assistance.

GRTL says Atlanta pregnancy centers received the second highest volume of calls in the nation.

"We will continue to reach out to women in need so that they know abortion is not their only alternative," says GRTL president Caryl Swift.

"Research tells us that 60 percent of women entering an abortion facility don't really want an abortion, but believe they have no alternative," Swift explained. "Eighty percent regret their decision. We care about saving women from the shame and guilt of abortions as well as saving babies' lives."

Swift also said the 15 year decline was helped by the various laws her group has been able to pass in the state legislature.

[Soldier4Christ]

Pro-Abortion Vandals Desecrate Princeton Group’s Pro-Life Display

You know that moonbat teacher that lead her students in destroying pro-life displays? Looks like she started a trend.

    Pro-abortion vandals have destroyed yet another campus pro-life display, this time at an Ivy League university.

    The student group Princeton Pro-Life had erected a display featuring 347 flags designed to symbolize the estimated number of students who might have been a part of Princeton’s class of 2010 if abortion had not been legalized. After being up just three days, the display was destroyed and signs bearing sarcastic pro-abortion messages were put up in its place.

    Thomas Haine, president of Princeton Pro-life, says he finds it very ironic that pro-abortion liberals who claim to be proponents of tolerance and free speech so often display little or no tolerance for pro-life expressions. He feels the messages left by the vandals are truly indicative of liberal abortion advocates’ brand of tolerance.

    “Someone had added 30 cut-up coat hangers strewn around on the ground,” Haine says, recalling the damage to the pro-life exhibit. “Our sign was trampled, and there were two other signs attached to ours: one that said, ‘Support smaller class sizes — support abortion’; and the other one that said, ‘347 coat hangers saved from mangling and mutilation.’”

    The pro-abortion vandals’ tableau was “a pretty horrific and obscene display,” the Princeton Pro-Life spokesman says. “I can’t imagine anyone laughing about a coat hanger abortion or proposing that these are good things, or anything. To poke fun at such a practice, even if you are pro-choice, seems a bit heartless.”

It has become quite typical of the anti-abortion freaks to do this kind of stuff. Perhaps their moniker should be, “free speech for me, but not for thee.” Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the complete absense of the ACLU in these cases?

[Soldier4Christ]

Youth Group to Planned Parenthood: Come Clean on Claims of Intimidation by Pro-Lifers


Generations for Life, a Chicago-based pro-life youth outreach, is calling on Planned Parenthood to come clean about an inflammatory story they are circulating about a pro-life pregnancy resource center (PRC) in Indiana. The story, circulated widely via e-mail and published on numerous websites, alleges the PRC engaged in "a campaign of harassment and intimidation" against a pregnant 17-year old girl who had "unwittingly" walked into the center, which shares a parking lot with the Planned Parenthood facility.

Planned Parenthood claims an unnamed PRC in an unidentified Indiana location first passed itself off as an abortion facility, tricked the young woman into going for an appointment at its "other office" -- the real Planned Parenthood facility across the lot -- and then called the police to intercept her there, telling the police that she was a minor "being forced to have an abortion against her will."

Thereafter, the Planned Parenthood story continues, the PRC staff "proceeded to wage a campaign of intimidation and harassment over the following days." The story says the PRC staff showed up at the girl's home and called her father's workplace, and even went to her school to urge classmates to pressure her not to have an abortion. The story grimly states: "Our clinic director reports that she was 'scared to death to leave her house.'"

Pro-life advocates familiar with how PRC's operate were immediately skeptical of the Planned Parenthood communiqué, noting its lack of specific details. An investigation by Generations for Life co-director John Jansen revealed that the only Planned Parenthood facility in Indiana that shares a parking lot with a PRC is A Woman's Choice in Indianapolis. "I found photos of both facilities online," Jansen remarked. "It's hard to see how anyone could mistake them."

Jansen then contacted the Indianapolis Police Department to see if they could corroborate Planned Parenthood's claims. They could not, and no police reports -- which are public records -- could be found dealing with either the Planned Parenthood center or the PRC. The official with whom Jansen spoke said that if the events described in the Planned Parenthood communiqué had taken place, police would be unlikely not to have filed a report on the incident.

"Not only is there no evidence that the police ever turned up at Planned Parenthood," Jansen said, "but it's hard to believe that nobody every contacted the police about any alleged intimidation campaign being waged by the pro-life center. This girl supposedly was 'scared to death' -- don't you think somebody would have called the police?" Jansen also searched county records and found no lawsuits of any kind against the PRC.

"Planned Parenthood's story may be great for fundraising, but it doesn't square with the facts as we know them," Jansen said. Generations for Life is calling on Planned Parenthood to either substantiate its claims with hard evidence, or admit the story is a fabrication.


___________________________

It just goes to show the deceptive means that Planned Parenthood is willing to employ just to reach their objective of killing many more babies.

[Soldier4Christ]

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

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.

[Soldier4Christ]

State closes Birmingham abortion clinic after investigation

An abortion clinic was shut down Thursday after the state suspended its license amid allegations that a worker administered an abortion-inducing drug and performed other medical treatment on the patient without a doctor.

According to state health officials, the woman was told she was only six weeks pregnant but delivered a nearly full-term stillborn infant.

An order from the State Board of Health called the violations by Summit Medical Center in Birmingham "egregious," and the state health officer, Dr. Donald Williamson, said the clinic might not reopen.

"We feel we need to move toward revoking their license," said Williamson.

Officials from the clinic did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment. Neither did a lawyer who has represented Summit in past cases.

Williamson said an order issued Wednesday suspending the clinic's license was the result of a six-week investigation into the treatment of a woman who went to Summit seeking an abortion on Feb. 20.

The patient, who was not identified in the suspension order, received an ultrasound examination from a clinic worker rather than a physician, as Williamson said is required by the law.

A staff member then gave the patient RU-486, an abortion-inducing drug, and follow-up medications that are supposed to be administered only by doctors, he said.

While the patient was told during the examination that she was only six weeks pregnant, she went to a hospital emergency room six days later and delivered a stillborn infant that weighed six pounds, four ounces, according to the order.

"It was nearly full term," said Williamson.

Once state health officials were notified, they found that Summit's records indicated that the ultrasound and medications were handled by a doctor, even though the physician was not present at the clinic that day, he said.

The state scheduled a public hearing for June 20 to determine whether Summit's license should be revoked.

State records show 11,370 abortions were performed in Alabama in 2004, the last year for which records are available. The state doesn't release records showing how many abortions are performed by individual women's clinics.

__________________

They should follow up and close all of them.

[Soldier4Christ]

Parents offered termination for Down's babies
Growing number of pregnant women encouraged to have late-term abortions

 Harrison's parents chose his name when he was a 35-week foetus - then they were offered a termination

Lisa Green could hardly wait to give birth to her second child. The images from her eight-month scans were showing a fully formed baby weighing more than 7lb. With the excitement and anticipation familiar to any expectant parent, she and her husband Tim had already chosen a name for their unborn son.

"Then the doctor said, 'I have some bad news - your baby has Down's syndrome'," recalls Mrs Green, 35, a part-time administrator from Margate, in Kent.

After a complicated pregnancy, during which the doctors had found that Mrs Green was carrying excess amniotic fluid, the couple had agreed that their baby could be tested for genetic conditions. "We were both in total shock, but this was considerably worsened when he said, 'You can have a termination.' I was 35 weeks' pregnant at this stage. My baby was fully formed and his name was decided. I was appalled.

"He urged us to think about the termination and think about how having a baby with 'mental retardation' would affect our lives. He listed only the potential negatives about Down's syndrome, without giving us any information to read for a more balanced view. The midwife tried to interject and offer us some leaflets, but he talked her down."

Mrs Green decided to go ahead with the pregnancy and, two weeks later, gave birth to Harrison - a little brother for their first child, Sam, who is now five. Harrison Green is now two years old and has just started nursery part-time. He is, according to his mother, a "happy and healthy" child.

But thousands of other unborn children diagnosed with Down's suffer a different fate. According to new research by the Down's Syndrome Association, Mrs Green is not alone in her experience.

Many pregnant women whose babies are diagnosed with the condition by an NHS screening programme are being actively encouraged to have late abortions. Since its launch in 2003, the screening service has been offered to all 760,000 women who fall pregnant in the UK every year, at an estimated cost to the NHS of £15,300 per Down's syndrome pregnancy detected.

Sixty-two per cent of all Down's syndrome cases are now diagnosed while still in the womb and 92 per cent of those affected choose to abort.

When the programme was launched, there were fears that it would be used to "weed out" less than perfect babies, with parents pressured into having abortions.

Babies with the syndrome have an extra chromosome and the disorder is associated with learning difficulty, heart problems and a susceptibility to leukaemia. Earlier this month, similar concerns arose over the screening of babies with genetic mutations, when the Government's IVF watchdog approved embryo selection to avoid babies being born with an inherited risk of breast cancer or a form of bowel cancer.

Those fears now appear to have become a disturbing reality. Nuala Scarisbrick, a trustee of Life, the pro-life organisation, said that the offer of late terminations for Down's babies was a case of "overt eugenics". She added: "There are human rights for everybody unless you are disabled in some way, it seems."

In recent years, advances in medical screening and the associated rise in the number of terminations (about 185,000 are performed every year in the UK) have led to a number of critics condemning the rising tide of "abortion on demand".

Under the law, abortions after 24 weeks are meant to be carried out only in cases of serious handicap. The 1967 Abortion Act states that such action can take place after 24 weeks only if "there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped".

Crucially, there is no further definition of "seriously handicapped". Instead, the legislation relies on the discretion of parents and doctors - and it is not just children with Down's who are affected. Three years ago, Joanna Jepson, a Church curate born with a congenital jaw defect, unsuccessfully attempted to take West Mercia Police to court for their failure to investigate a late abortion on a foetus with a cleft palate.

Professor Charles Rodeck, the spokesman on foetal medicine and antenatal screening for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said that it was impossible to say this kind of thing never happened and that the law beyond 24 weeks was "a bit of a grey area". "Whether you regard [Down's] as a severe handicap is a matter of opinion, because there are milder degrees of Down's."

And, as the statistics show only too clearly, it happens more often than the casual observer might imagine. Overall, the incidence of Down's syndrome is rising, due largely to a doubling of the number of women having babies in their forties over the past decade. Abortions for the condition have reached record levels, with terminated pregnancies outstripping the number of infants born with the chromosomal abnormality.

The NHS National Down Syndrome Cytogenic Register shows that there were 657 live births and an estimated 937 abortions in 2004 - the highest number of terminations for the condition on record, representing a three-fold increase over the past 15 years.

Separate figures from the Department of Health reveal that these included 11 "late" abortions for Down's syndrome in 2004, which took place after the usual 24-week limit.

The problem, according to the Down's Syndrome Association, is that, while there have been substantial prenatal medical advances, there has not been an associated change in the minds of medical professionals about what life can be like for a disabled child.

"Some health professionals have outdated or prejudiced views about people with Down's syndrome, owing to a lack of training about the condition," said a spokesman, "so they are unable to provide a balanced view on what life would be like for the family of a child with the condition."

A Department of Health spokesman insisted that the screening programme aims to offer women "an informed choice" and added: "Training is under way to improve the technical knowledge, communication and counselling skills of staff."

But the association's survey of 900 families given a positive diagnosis for Down's syndrome concludes that mothers-to-be are embarking on antenatal tests without being given time or the balanced information to consider the full consequences if the test is positive.

Nor is the test itself foolproof. Initial pregnancy checks for Down's syndrome may include a nuchal fold test, which is a special scan of the baby's neck, and a test of the mother's blood to work out a "risk" level.

Women diagnosed with a greater than one in 250 chance of having a baby with Down's syndrome are told that they are "high risk" and recommended an amniocentesis, which uses a needle to draw fluid from the womb. But five per cent of these high-risk women are actually "false positives", carrying a healthy baby who does not have the condition. A further one per cent will miscarry because of the test.

Mr Prakash Belgaumkar, the obstetrician who treated Mrs Green, said that although he could not remember the specifics of the case, "in general, if someone has a severe chromosomal abnormality, involving life-long care with severe implications for her and her family, then a termination would be discussed.

"In these situations, some feel if they had been told more about Down's they would have gone and had a termination, and some people, if you give a lot of information, feel 'I am being pushed into having a termination'," he said. "The law says if there is significant abnormality affecting the baby's mental or physical ability then we are right to offer [a termination] and that is legal."

Although children with Down's syndrome who also have an untreated heart condition are unlikely to survive into their teens, a child with no other health problems can expect to live up to the age of 60. Many children with the condition can, like Harrison, lead happy and fulfilled lives.

"We don't know what we'd do without him - he's so adored," says Mrs Green. "The frightening thing is that, had we been told by the same doctor about the Down's syndrome earlier in the pregnancy, there is a chance we might have decided to abort. That decision would have been based on incomplete and biased information."

But by the time of diagnosis, the Greens already knew that their feelings about their son were unconditional. In the end, the couple decided to act on biased information of their own: love.

______________________________

This is truly sad. Some of the sweetest most productive people I have ever met are those with Downs Syndrome.

[Soldier4Christ]

Planned Parenthood fights order in fraud probe
Pro-life group's undercover work leads to state investigation

Planned Parenthood is on the defensive in Indiana after a pro-life group's undercover work led to a state fraud investigation and a judge's decision ordering the agency to turn over medical records for abortions done on girls under the age of 14.

Mark Crutcher, author of a new handbook that aims to re-energize and equip the pro-life movement, sparked the Indiana probe and others like it across the nation with a well-documented survey revealing virtually all Planned Parenthood affiliates fail to report clear cases of statutory rape to authorities.

Girls under age 14 are presumed to be victims of rape, but Planned Parenthood argues that compliance with the underage reporting law would breach the doctor-patient confidentiality agreement.

Nevertheless, Crutcher, president of Texas-based Life Dynamics, insists Planned Parenthood understands the law, noting his group has a tape recording of the abortion provider's top two national attorneys admitting that child-abuse reporting laws override confidentiality requirements in every state.

Planned Parenthood is preparing an appeal of the May 30 ruling by Judge Kenneth H. Johnson of Marion Superior Court, who said in his 23-page decision, "The great public interest in the reporting, investigation and prosecution of child abuse trumps even the patient's interest in privileged communication with her physician, because in the end, both the patient and the state are benefited by the disclosure."

Betty Cockrum, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana, told the New York Times she's fighting the ruling to protect the 100,000 patients who went to the 40 Indiana health centers last year.

"It's surprising and disappointing," Cockrum said. "Patients beyond Planned Parenthood's are looking at this decision with some anxiety. People believe their medical records are sacred."

A similar case is pending in Kansas before the state Supreme Court.

In addition to the Planned Parenthood probe, Crutcher's Life Dynamics brought about the 1999 congressional hearings on the sale of aborted baby parts. His unique 1996 book, "Lime 5: Exploited by Choice," documented that women are being sexually assaulted, mutilated and killed inside legal abortion clinics in numbers never before been made public.

Staying on message

In his latest book, "On Message: Understanding and Communicating the Pro-Life Position," Crutcher provides succinct responses to 90 arguments commonly posed by abortion-rights activists.

He believes the handbook comes at a time of unprecedented opportunity for the pro-life cause.

But Crutcher contends that since the Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 overturning all state laws banning abortion, the movement has strayed from the simple message that life begins at conception and, therefore, must be protected from that moment.

"If you go back to the early years of the movement, the message was, 'We must stop abortion, period,'" Crutcher explained in a WorldNetDaily interview. "But over that period, we've drifted, we've compromised, allowing abortion for this reason or that reason."

He contends there is no such position as "pro-life with exceptions."

In his introduction, he asserts the "exceptions" arguments can be exposed as fraudulent by simply paraphrasing them -- such as in the case of rape, saying, "I am pro-life, but I think it should be legal to butcher babies who were conceived in rape."

The arguments in the book, presented in an easy-to-read format, are vital, Crutcher believes, because the pro-life struggle is a grass-roots campaign that will be won by people talking to their co-workers, relatives, friends and neighbors.

"We've got to stay on our message, the fundamental pro-life view," he said. "I've just seen so many instances where people who call themselves pro-life are so far away from the pro-life position that it means nothing."

One reason he wrote the book is because of a new generation of activists.

"We have all these polls showing we have an enormous influx of young people coming into the pro-life movement," he said. "It's incumbent on those of us who have been around for a while to educate these people."

But the book has been helpful even to pro-life advocates active for many years.

A 20-year veteran of the movement, noted Crutcher, said she got the book for her daughter but decided to read it first to make sure it contained nothing inappropriate for young people.

The woman didn't anticipate learning anything, he said, but after reading it, commented, "I was astonished at what I didn't know, and I was astonished to see what were very simple no-nonsense answers to questions."

Topics include contraception, women's rights, "back-alley abortions," sex education, constitutional rights and overpopulation.

Media 'lockhold'

Crutcher believes the abortion-rights movement has been able to gain ground because of its "lockhold" on the American media.

"The mainstream media has been a giant newsletter for the pro-abortion lobby," he said.

But Crutcher also belives pro-lifers have been misguided in their strategies.

"People have said erroneously, if we can soften the pro-life edge a little bit, we'll make it more palitable," he explained. "But all you've done is confuse people."

The genius of the pro-abortion movement, he says, is they have been unwilling to compromise.

"If a state proposes the most innocuous, meaningless restriction on abortion, these people fight it like it's a complete ban," Crutcher said.

In contrast, the pro-life side has been willing to compromise by allowing exceptions, such as the health of the mother and fetal deformity.

"In the process, what we did was confuse the American people," said Crutcher. "If we had stuck to our guns, to say absolutely no abortion during the nine months of pregnancy, I think we would have won this a long time ago."

When the American people are given too many different options, he added, they "look at it and say, that's too complicated and don't make a decision."

"The irony," Crutcher continued, "is that it's been pro-lifers who are most willing to compromise, but when you take a poll of the American people, asking which side seems to be the most intractable, the vast majority would say us, despite the fact that we are the ones to compromise.

The incremental approach, he maintains, has "cost us enormously."

"We started over 30 years ago to return legal protection to unborn children," he said. "But after an enormous amount of money, unimaginable man hours, going to jail, divorces, we have not returned legal protection to one baby in one state yet."

Crutcher said some pro-lifer leaders are promoting his new book to their own people, who find the responses to be compelling ways to articulate their beliefs.

"I honestly think I completely blow [the opposition] out of the water," Crutcher declared.

For example, he said, abortion-rights advocates argue abortion is necessary to curb many social problems brought about by parents who believe they're unable to cope with having a child.

"But every one of these social problems got worse when abortion was made legal," he said, noting government statistics show child abuse up ten-fold in recent years.

Crutcher also argues it's a fallacy that abortion serves the interest of women.

"If you look at history of feminism in America, abortion serves the interest of predatory men," he said, pointing out the highest percentage of support that comes from males.

Looking to the future, Crutcher said it's a misconception that simply overturning Roe v. Wade would end abortion.

"Nothing could be further from the truth," he said. "All it will do is send it back to the states, many of which have codified Roe in their constitutions."

However, it would be a substantial victory for the pro-life movement if the justices overturned Roe because the case doesn't recognize the unborn child as a human being, Crutcher said.

"What we have to keep ultimately striving for is the biological reality that life begins at conception. Any other point is strictly abitrary."

[Soldier4Christ]

Louisiana Senate Cmte Backs Bill Telling Women of Baby's Abortion Pain

A Louisiana state Senate committee has approved legislation requiring abortion facilities to tell women considering an abortion later in pregnancy that it will likely cause severe pain for the baby. The measure now heads to the full state Senate for debate and a vote.

The legislation also allows women considering an abortion to ask the abortion practitioner to provide the baby with anesthesia before the abortion to lessen the pain.

The committee approved it on a 3-2 vote and Senators Sherry Cheek, a Republican, and Diana Bajoie, a Democrat voted against the bill. Sens. Nick Gautreaux and Joe McPherson, both Democrats, and Tom Schedler, a Republican, backed it.

Representative A.G. Crowe is the main sponsor of the bill, HB 1382, and he hopes it will also have the effect of persuading some women to reconsider their decision to have an abortion.

Representatives of Planned Parenthood of Louisiana and the ACLU appeared during the committee hearing to oppose the legislation. J. Michael Malec, an ACLU lobbyist, claimed there is no scientific proof that babies can experience pain during an abortion.

The bill is based on expert findings that babies feel intense pain during the abortion.

Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand of the University of Arkansas Medical Center says he and other specialists in development of unborn children have shown that babies feel pain before birth as early as 20 weeks into the pregnancy.

Anand has said other medical studies conclude that unborn babies are "very likely" to be "extremely sensitive to pain during the gestation of 20 to 30 weeks."

Malec claimed the measure would be an intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship. "To tell doctors what to tell their patients is not reasonable, and it's not the function of the Legislature," he said, according to an AP report.

But, during the House hearing previously, Dorinda Bordlee, a New Orleans-based pro-life attorney cited Supreme Court rulings saying the law was allowable because "You, as the Legislature, have the right to encourage childbirth over abortion."

An April 2004 Zogby poll shows that 77% of Americans back "laws requiring that women who are 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancy be given information about fetal pain before having an abortion."

Only 16 percent disagreed with such a proposal, according to the poll.

[Soldier4Christ]

Top court to decide second abortion law case

The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would expand its review of a federal law banning some abortion procedures and would decide a California case on whether the law was too vague and imposed a burden on women.

The justices in February agreed to rule on a Nebraska case on whether the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is unconstitutional because it lacks an exception to protect the health of a pregnant woman.

The California case involved additional issues on whether the law imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to seek an abortion and whether it is unconstitutionally vague. A U.S. appeals court declared the law unconstitutional and upheld an injunction barring its enforcement.

Both cases will be decided in the upcoming term that begins in October. The law represents the first nationwide ban on an abortion procedure since the Supreme Court's landmark 1973 ruling that women have a constitutional right to abortion.

[Soldier4Christ]

Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco Signs State Abortion Ban Into Law

Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco, a Democrat, signed into law on Saturday a new statewide ban on abortions. The law prohibits all abortions except those necessary to save the mother's life and would not take effect until the Supreme Court overturns its decision in Roe v. Wade allowing virtually all abortions.

The measure would also become effective if a federal constitutional amendment is adopted that allows states to ban abortions.

“The central provision of the bill supports and reflects my personal beliefs,” she said in a statement, even though she would have preferred to have abortions legal in the case of rape or incest. Lawmakers twice rejected amendments to do so.

Blanco cited “overwhelming” bipartisan support for the measure in the state legislature.

The House approved the measure on a 85-17 vote and rejected rape and incest exceptions by a 67-36 margin. The Senate originally signed off on the bill with a 31-6 vote and defeated the extra exceptions on a 20-17 vote.

Planned Parenthood of Louisiana issued a statement saying the new law "endangers women's health by criminalizing abortion at a time when the state is still recovering from Hurricane Katrina and scrambling to prepare for the start of the new hurricane season."

The Louisiana abortion ban is different from a South Dakota ban that seeks to prohibit abortions now and is considered an attack on Roe.

Dorinda Bordlee, a long-time pro-life attorney in Louisiana and vice president of the Bioethics Defense Fund, told LifeNews.com other states should follow Louisiana's lead.

"Our approach to include a post-Roe activation clause, sometimes called a trigger clause, enabled the legislators to speak their hearts without abortion industry lawyer's breathing down their backs," Bordlee explained.

"It allowed post-abortive women to educate the legislators about how abortion negatively impacted their lives in profound ways," Bordlee added. "Other states that choose to follow Louisiana's lead will help build a consensus to reverse Roe."

Under the measure, an abortion practitioner who does an abortion would be fined from $10-100,000 and receive anywhere from one to 10 years in prison.

Lawmakers approved an abortion ban in 1991 that did have rape and incest exceptions in it and was eventually vetoed by then Gov. Buddy Roemer. Federal courts declared it unconstitutional in 1992.

The measure is SB 33, the Human Life Protection Act.

[Soldier4Christ]

S.D. to vote on abortion law in Nov.


Voters will have the final say on a tough new law that bans almost all abortions in South Dakota.

Secretary of State Chris Nelson said Monday that the law's opponents had collected enough signatures to put a question on the November ballot asking voters if the law should go into effect as planned or be dumped.

The state's abortion law, among the strictest in the nation, bans the procedure in all cases except when necessary to save a woman's life, with no exceptions for rape or incest.

Supporters hoped it would prompt a court challenge that would give the U.S. Supreme Court an opportunity to overturn its 1973 Roe. v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. But instead, opponents, who argue the law is too extreme, gathered enough petition signatures to put the question directly to voters.

A coalition of groups opposed to the law needed 16,728 signatures by Monday to put the measure on the ballot. Voters will be asked to decide whether to accept or reject the measure.

The Legislature passed the measure and the governor signed it in March. It was scheduled to take effect July 1 but is now on hold pending the outcome of the public vote.