Posts Tagged ‘Planned Parenthood’

The most recent update is at the bottom of the article.

On Wednesday, a dear friend of mine sent me an e-mail about donating to “Susan G. Komen for the Cure” to help fight breast cancer.  She has a friend who has breast cancer, so she’s doing a walk for that organization.  I e-mailed her back telling her that I couldn’t help her with her cause because of the links between Komen and Planned Parenthood.  It turns out that, on their website, Komen has dedicated a page and several PDF’s to soften their Planned Parenthood link and to out-rightly dismiss scientific studies that link breast cancer with abortion.

I read the letter from Komen’s Chief Scientific Advisor Eric Winer that tries to downplay Komen’s relationship with Planned Parenthood.  That is exactly what he is trying to do.  The first three paragraphs don’t even deal with the subject, but promote their own “good nature”.

The best, or worst depending on how you look at it, line in the entire letter is “As part of our financial arrangements, we monitor our grantees twice a year to be sure they are spending the money in line with our agreements, and we are assured that Planned Parenthood uses these funds only for breast health education, screening and treatment programs.” (emphasis mine)

First off, they freely admit to giving money to Planned Parenthood!  If you had any doubts, there it is from Dr. Winer, himself, with no coverup.  His statement is naive at best and downright idiotic at worst.  This is like saying someone donates to the KKK, but it’s OK because they assure us they only use it for cake and punch, or they give money to neo-nazis, but that is also OK because they assure us they only use it for prostate exams.  This definitely reads more like some bad joke than what Dr. Winer believes, but, alas, it is true.  Even if they only used the money for cancer screenings, that means they don’t have to use their existing funds for those screenings, giving them even more resources to fund their abortions, contraception, “education”, and advertising.  If you donate to Komen, part of that, without a doubt, goes directly to Planned Parenthood.  Dr. Winer makes that unashamedly clear.

Nancy Brinker, who founded the Susan G. Komen Foundation, was, herself, on the advisory board of Planned Parenthood of Dallas, and has received the Gertrude Shelburne Humanitarian Award from them. Between April 2005 and March 2006, Komen affiliates gave $711,485 to Planned Parenthood.

After learning about the link between Planned Parenthood and Komen, Council Board member Eve Sanchez-Silver resigned.  She has gone around the country giving talks about Komen and the link between breast cancer and abortion.

Dr. Winer goes on to say that Catholics approve of the Komen foundation.  Well, some may, but many have issued statements against Komen and warned their congregations about participating with them.  Catholics also voted for Barack Obama, who is the most liberal, pro-abortion President in our nation’s history.  Several Cardinals have called for Obama voters to abstain from Communion until they repent for voting for him.

Dr. Winer also repeats their mantra of denying the link between abortion and breast cancer and that studies contradict other studies that confirm the link. A group dedicated to informing women about the abortion-breast cancer link is the Coalition On Abortion/Breast Cancer.  They have information specifically dedicated to abortion’s link to breast cancer including information about cancer fundraising groups’ dismissal of the link.

Life Issues Institute also has more information about the ABC link, such as information specifically about Susan G. Komen for the Cure and medical institutes that DO recognize the ABC link.

From the Coalition on Abortion Breast Cancer FAQ:

20) I know that abortion industry experts concede that women who have abortions lose the risk-reducing benefit of childbearing. However, apart from that effect, aren’t there studies showing that an abortion raises risk very little or not at all, in comparison to not having had that pregnancy?

Yes. There are several studies that report these results.  Unfortunately, when you read about it in the press, journalists often don’t understand the differences between the two cancer risks of abortion.

For instance, Valerie Beral and her colleagues published a paper in the British journal Lancet in 2004 that has been widely used to convince women that abortion is “safe.” [31]

The Beral paper only examined the debated breast cancer risk.  Its authors conceded the recognized risk of abortion – that childbearing protects women from the disease.

“Unfortunately, misinformation has circulated in the media following an article published last year in the British medical journal The Lancet,” noted Andrew Schlafly, General Counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.  “The article did not deny that increased abortions result in greater incidence of breast cancer.  Rather, the article merely claimed that abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer, compared to the risk of someone who delayed pregnancy altogether.” [21]

Four experts, independently of one another, sharply criticized the Beral paper. [21,32,33,34,35]  Some of the criticisms include:

1) Beral et al. did not compare groups of women who were physiologically the same.  They should have compared pregnant women who aborted to pregnant women who carried their pregnancies to term.  Instead, they compared the effect of aborting with the effect of not having had that pregnancy. Pregnancy brings about permanent changes in the structure of the breasts. Pregnant women who choose abortion should be compared to pregnant women who give birth after a full term pregnancy.

2) Twenty-eight out of 52 studies (a majority of the research) contained unpublished abortion data. That means that scientists cannot double-check those studies to determine if they’re flawed or if the research is even relevant.  Women just have to take their word for it.

3) Beral et al. used unscientific reasons to exclude 14 peer-reviewed, published studies that reported risk increases for women who had abortions.

Ed Furton, MA, Ph.D., editor of the journal, Ethics and Medics, severely criticized the Beral paper.  He said:

“The Beral study is therefore cause for alarm.  When a leading scientific journal allows its pages to be used as a political platform, and sets aside objective standards of scientific research, we must begin to wonder whether the spirit of (Jacques) Derrida has infected even scientific discourse….

“Picking conclusions ahead of time, and arranging the evidence to support them, will only serve to undermine the respect that scientific inquiry deserves….

“The unwillingness of scientists to speak out against the shoddy research that is being advanced by those who deny the abortion-breast cancer link is a very serious breach…

“When the public learns that a causal link between abortion and breast cancer has been downplayed by the scientific community – for reasons that are ideological rather than factual – the feeling of betrayal will be strong.” [34]

Professor Joel Brind at Baruch College in New York concurs with Ed Furton.  He has documented widespread bias in the scientific community against the abortion-breast cancer link. In a major paper for the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, he cited flawed research that is being used in press reports to erase any notions in the public mind that abortion is unsafe. [32]

In a subsequent paper for the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons published in 2005, Brind reviewed ten recent, prospective studies and concluded that they are seriously flawed.  He wrote:

“Collectively, these studies are found to embody many serious weaknesses and flaws, including cohort effects, substantial misclassification errors due to missing information in databases, inadequate follow-up times, inadequately controlled effects of confounding variables, and frank violations of the scientific method.  These recent studies therefore do not invalidate the large body of previously published studies that established induced abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.” [35]

Although these studies have been criticized in a medical journal for their flaws, the abortion industry and the cancer fundraising industry use them to convince women of the safety of abortion.  These studies include:

Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Olson JH, Frisch M, Westergaard T, Helweg-Larsen K, Andersen PK. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997;336:81-85.

Lazovich D, Thompson JA, Mink PJ, Sellers TA, Anderson KE. Induced abortion and breast cancer risk. Epidemiology 2000;11:76-80.

Tang NC, Weiss NS, Malone KE. Induced abortion in relation to breast cancer among parous women: A birth certificate registry study. Epidemiology 2000;11:177-80.

Goldacre MJ, Kurina LM, Seagroatt V, Yeates. Abortion and breast cancer: a case-control record linkage study. J Epidemiol Community Health 2001;55:336-337.

Ye Z, Gao DL, Qin Q, Ray RM, Thomas DB. Breast cancer in relation to induced abortions in a cohort of Chinese women. Br J Cancer 2002;87:977-981.

Newcomb PA, Mandelson MT. A record-based evaluation of induced abortion and breast cancer risk (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2000;11:777-781.

Erlandsson G, Montgomery S, Cnattingius S, et al. Abortions and breast cancer: Record-based case-control study. Int J Cancer 2003;103:676-679.

Paoletti X, Clavel-Chapelon F, E3N group. Induced and spontaneous abortion and breast cancer risk: Results from the E3N cohort study. Int J Cancer 2003;106:270-276.

Brewster D, Stockton D, Dobbie R, Bull D, Beral D. Risk of breast cancer after miscarriage or induced abortion: a Scottish record linkage case-control study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2005;59:283-287.

Palmer J, Wise L, Adams-Campbell LL, Rosenberg L. A prospective study of induced abortion and breast cancer in African-American women. Cancer Causes and Control 2004;15:105-111.

For more information, see Dr. Brind’s review article in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons at: http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf

In 2007, Patrick Carroll, a British statistician and actuary, reported that abortion is the “best predictor” of breast cancer rates in eight European countries (including the U.K.), and fertility is also a useful predictor of those trends. [39,40] Carroll demonstrated that he could predict future breast cancer cases for England and Wales for the years 2003 and 2004 with nearly 100% accuracy by using abortion rates and, to a lesser extent, fertility rates in his mathematical model.

They also state:


Most of the risk factors associated with breast cancer involve estrogen overexposure. Women who experience more menstrual cycles are exposed to higher levels of estradiol, a form of estrogen, over the course of their lifetimes. Women who reach puberty at an early age or menopause at a late age or who have fewer or no children, experience more menstrual cycles. Ergo, they are known have a higher risk of breast cancer. Women who have more children and who nurse them, on the other hand, experience fewer menstrual cycles and reduce their risk of breast cancer by doing so. Similarly, a low fat diet and avoidance of alcohol reduce a woman’s exposure to estrogen.

Estrogen is a secondary carcinogen. It promotes the growth of normal and abnormal tissue. In fact, estrogen replacement therapy, which is generally the same chemical form as the estrogen naturally produced by a woman’s ovaries, was included on our nation’s list of known carcinogens in 2001.

For an exhaustive explanation of estrogen’s role in the promotion of breast cancer, see the Web Site for the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute at and click on “The Estrogen Connection,” www.BCPInstitue.org.

Biological Explanation for the Link

The explanation for the independent link makes good biological sense. It remains unrefuted and unchallenged by scientists because it is physiologically correct.

A never-pregnant woman has a network of primitive, immature and cancer-vulnerable breast cells which make up her milk glands. It is only in the third trimester of pregnancy – after 32 weeks gestation – that her cells start to mature and are fashioned into milk producing tissue whose cells are cancer resistant.

When a woman becomes pregnant, her breasts enlarge. This occurs because a hormone called estradiol, a type of estrogen, causes both the normal and pre-cancerous cells in the breast to multiply terrifically. This process is called “proliferation.” By 7 to 8 weeks gestation, the estradiol level has increased by 500% over what it was at the time of conception.

If the pregnancy is carried to term, a second process called “differentiation” takes place. Differentiation is the shaping of cells into milk producing tissue. It shuts off the cell multiplication process. This takes place at approximately 32 weeks gestation.

If the pregnancy is aborted, the woman is left with more undifferentiated — and therefore cancer-vulnerable cells — than she had before she was pregnant. On the other hand, a full term pregnancy leaves a woman with more milk producing differentiated cells, which means that she has fewer cancer-vulnerable cells in her breasts than she did before the pregnancy.

In contrast, research has shown that most miscarriages do not raise breast cancer risk. This is due to a lack of estrogen overexposure. Miscarriages are frequently precipitated by a decline in the production of progesterone which is needed to maintain a pregnancy. Estrogen is made from progesterone, so the levels of each hormone rise and fall together during pregnancy.

For a thorough biological explanation of the abortion-breast cancer link, see this second website for the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, www.BCPInstitute.org and click on its online booklet, “Breast Cancer Risks and Prevention.”


The first epidemiological study was reported in an English language journal in 1957. Researchers found a 160% elevation in risk among women who’d obtained abortions. [Segi M., et al. GANN (1957); 48 (Suppl): 1-63]

The first study to examine the abortion-breast cancer link among American women was published in 1981 and reported that abortion “appears to cause a substantial increase in risk of subsequent breast cancer.” A 140% risk elevation was reported. [Pike MC et al., British Journal of Cancer (1981;43:72-6]

Howe et al. 1989, the only statistically significant study conducted on American women in which medical records of abortion were used, not interviews after the fact, reported a 90% increased risk of breast cancer among women in New York who had chosen abortion. [Howe et al. (1989) Int J Epidemiol 18:300-4]

Our bar graphs reveal the relative risk found for each epidemiological study. These graphs were developed for our website by Chris Kahlenborn, M.D., author of the book, Breast Cancer, Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill.

Let me give you the simple version of how the ABC works:

When a women has her monthly cycle, her breasts fill with a cancer causing toxin (estrogen). When she becomes pregnant, her cycle stops for the 9-month period. That in itself has always been an indisputable key factor to lowering breast cancer. The earlier a woman completes a full-term pregnancy, the better, and the more children, the better. Breastfeeding also helps stave off breast cancer.  But in addition, when a pregnancy is suddenly aborted, breasts that were preparing to nourish a baby are left with more undifferentiated, i.e., cancer-vulnerable cells, than before she was pregnant. The fact is, abortion can increase a woman’s risk factor up to 160%!

Update: 7/19/11

LifeSiteNews.com has published an article now detailing that Komen has been granting money for embryonic stem cell research.  The evidence comes from Karen Malec of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer.

Now, Karen Malec of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer has spent time examining Komen’s 990 Forms for the IRS for 2010 and she found that Komen has active relationships with at least five research groups or educational facilities that engage in embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of unborn children in their earliest days for stem cells that have yet to help any patients.

Komen is careful in its documents to state that none of the funds directly support embryonic stem cell research, saying in its Group Return for 2010 under a section entitled “Grant Statement” that “While Komen affiliates do not fund research grants directly, a portion of the funds raised by every Komen affiliate (approximately 25%) go to support the research and training grants program at Komen’s International Headquarters.”

The return shows donations from Komen totaling $3.75 million to Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, $4.5 million to the University of Kansas Medical Center, $1 million to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, $1 million to the Society for Women’s Health Research, and $600,000 to Yale University.

Looking at those institutions, Yale not only engages in embryonic stem cell research but, in 2006, came under federal investigation for apparently mismanaging federal stem cell research grants. Also, a Johns Hopkins researcher also came under fire in December 2008 for trashing peer-reviewed research showing abortion’s link to negative mental health issues and problems for women. And the National Cancer Institute has been repeatedly blasted by pro-life advocates for denying the abortion-breast cancer link exists.

“Komen’s Parent Return for 2010 shows that millions of dollars in grants were given to research facilities that have policies supporting experiments on human embryos,” Malec says, adding that the list of schools is only a partial list of the facilities engaging in embryonic research that received grants.

Recent statements from the Catholic Bishop of Toledo, the Most Reverend Leonard Blair, bring up both abortion and the potential of Komen indirectly supporting embryonic research as reasons for Catholics to have misgivings about the breast cancer group. Malec says the statements from Bishop Blair “suggest that local Komen officials may have misled him and his associates with respect to the organization’s practices involving experiments on human embryos.”

“They are open to embryonic stem cell research and may well fund such research in the future,” the bishop noted.

Combined with the millions in donations to the nation’s biggest abortion business, Komen says the new information about the Komen ties to embryonic stem cell research centers makes it so the breast cancer group is not worthy of support. She says Komen needs to be honest with women about the abortion-breast cancer connection.

“It’s more than ironic that Planned Parenthood receives contributions from an organization allegedly dedicated to the eradication of breast cancer,” Malec says. “Abortion and the birth control pill – which Planned Parenthood sells – are risk factors for the disease. It’s certainly bad for business to tell women the truth about the abortion-breast cancer link. Knowledge of that risk would cause some to turn their backs on induced abortion and cut into Planned Parenthood’s profits.”

“On the other hand, warning women about the breast cancer risk of abortion would mean fewer breast cancer patients and, therefore, a reduction in donations for Komen. Telling donors that their previous abortions may have been responsible for their breast cancers is simply not a good fundraising tactic,” she concludes.

Before anyone starts formulating their arguments: does this mean that everyone who gets an abortion will get breast cancer?  No.  Did everyone with breast cancer have an abortion in the past?  No.  Does having an abortion increase the risk of breast cancer.  Undeniably, yes.

This is the simple truth:  Susan G. Komen for the Cure gives money and resources to Planned Parenthood.  That alone should give you cause for great concern, but they also deny critical information to women about the link between abortions and breast cancer.

If you support Susan G. Komen for the Cure, congratulations, you help support abortion.

Helpful Information: Fact Sheet by Life Issues Institute Linking Susan G. Komen with Planned Parenthood
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
Jill Stanek’s Blog
Life Issues Institute
OneNewsNow Reports On The Komen/Planned Parenthood Link


Read Full Post »

CNSNews brings us a story where the International Planned Parenthood Federation has published a guide that encourages HIV-infected youth to have sex, not tell their sexual partners they are infected, and denounces laws requiring persons with sexually transmitted diseases to tell their sexual partners or face criminal charges.

Planned Parenthood Guide Tells HIV-Infected Youth to Enjoy Sex, Denounces Laws on Disclosure of HIV/AIDS to Sexual Partners

Friday, April 09, 2010
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – In a guide for young people published by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the organization says it opposes laws that make it a crime for people not to tell sexual partners they have HIV. The IPPF’s “Healthy, Happy and Hot” guide also tells young people who have the virus that they have a right to “fun, happy and sexually fulfilling lives.”

HIV is the virus that causes AIDS.

“Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else,” the guide states. “These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges.”

Under the heading “Sexual Pleasure and Well-Being,” the guide declares that it is a human right and not a criminal issue as to whether a person decides if or when to disclose their HIV status, even if they engage in sexual activities.

“You know best when it is safe for you to disclose your status,” the guide states. “There are many reasons that people do not share their HIV status. They may not want people to know they are living with HIV because of the stigma and discrimination within their community.”

The guide continues: “They may worry that people will find out something else they have kept secret, like that they are using injecting drugs or, having sex outside of marriage or having sex with people of the same gender. People in long-term relationships who find out they are living with HIV sometime fear that their partner will react violently or end the relationship.”

“Young people living with HIV have the right to sexual pleasure,” the guide states under the heading “Sexual Pleasure; Have Fun Explore and Be Yourself.”

“Sex can feel great and can be really fun!” the guide says. “Many people think sex is just about vaginal and anal intercourse …. But, there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex.”

“Sex can include kissing, touching, licking, tickling, sucking and cuddling,” the guide states. “Some people like aggressive sex, while others like to have soft and slow sex with their partners (sic).”

“It’s a vile and vulgar brochure,” Austin Ruse, president of the United Nations watchdog group Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, told CNSNews.com.

Ruse’s group has been reporting on the “Healthy, Happy and Hot” guide in recent weeks after Sharon Slater, president of Family Watch International, attended an event for the U.N.’s Commission on the Status of Women and found copies of the guide in a room where Girl Scouts were meeting.

The Girls Scouts of the USA released a statement denying they were distributing the guides and suggesting the guides may already have been in the room they were using.

Ruse said that aside from the graphic promotion of sex for young people with HIV, the guide also falsely claims that there are international laws to protect their “human rights.”

“There is no such international right that says that you are not required to reveal your HIV status before having sex,” Ruse said. “There’s no such thing.”

“It is a flat-out lie to say otherwise, and in this brochure it is lies from stem to stern,” he said.

Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, told CNSNews.com:  “To the extent that ‘sexual rights’ and ‘reproductive rights’ are mentioned in documents of the U.N. or other international agencies, even informally, these terms often have a meaning contrary to that which IPPF gives them. For example, ‘sexual rights’ usually means the right to say NO to unwanted or coerced sex — not a right to HAVE sex under almost any circumstances.”

“By the same token, ‘reproductive rights’  usually involve the right to have children — not the right to destroy them through abortion,” Sprigg said, adding that laws requiring people to disclose to sexual partners that they have HIV protect people and promote sexual health.

IPPF defends its position, saying laws aimed at people with HIV hurt efforts to prevent the spread of the disease and discriminate unfairly against people who have the virus.

“Punitive laws that criminalise HIV transmission will jeopardise global HIV prevention efforts by acting as a disincentive for knowing one’s HIV status and by incorrectly placing an undue burden of responsibility for all safe sex behaviour on people living with HIV (who in many societies are already marginalised and stigmatised),” Kevin Osborne, IPPF senior advisor on HIV told CNSNews.com. “Alternatives to the criminal law must be used to foster increased HIV prevention efforts and behaviours.”

The guide also makes a plug for Planned Parenthood’s profitable “reproductive services.”

“Your local family planning clinic can help you create a plan, whether it is for having children safely, preventing or terminating unplanned pregnancies, or figuring out how to start a family if you are single or in a same-sex relationship,” the guide states.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America receives more than $350 million of taxpayer funding annually, although federal law prohibits those funds from being used for abortion.

In his early days in office, President Barack Obama signed an executive order reversing the Mexico City Policy that prohibited the use of taxpayer funds to promote or provide abortions abroad, opening the way for U.S.-funded abortions around the world.

Read Full Post »

The National Right to Life Committee is remarking on some bizzare comments made by Hillary Clinton during her award reception by Planned Parenthood.

She said, “I want to assure you that reproductive rights and the umbrella issue of women’s rights and empowerment will be a key to the foreign policy of this Administration.”  So how, exactly, do “reproductive rights” (translation: abortion) contribute as a key role in foreign policy?  Killing unborn babies is a key to foreign policy?  What?

Hillary Clinton’s Bizarre Remarks

March 30th, 2009

hillclintonWe thought we had heard every out-of-left-field justification for slaughtering unborn babies imaginable. Until last Friday, that is, when we learned that ripping arms from the torsos of the little ones not only funnels millions of dollars into the war chest of Planned Parenthood, it is also a critical component in defeating Al-Qaida!

To be fair, when receiving PPFA’s “highest award,” pro-abortion Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can perhaps be forgiven for making even less sense than usual. There she was, at the annual conference of the nation’s largest abortion “provider,” receiving the Margaret Sanger award, in honor of the founder of PPFA. What could make everyone feel better at the Houston gala than to be told that directing “family planning” money into the hands of groups who never tire of finding new populations to thin out is an “indispensable ingredient of [the Obama Administration’s use of] smart power”?

A further example of “smart power” of which she “was very proud” Clinton said, was “when President Obama repealed the Mexico City policy.” Opening the floodgates to allow tax dollars to pour into the hands of militant pro-abortionist certainly enhances the power of the International Abortion Establishment, but smart it is not.

The best way to understand Clinton’s logic is to read her speech right to left, as if it were written in Chinese. Somewhere in the midst of a sea of non sequiturs Clinton launched the idea that obliterating unborn babies in the developing world is connected to defeating terrorism, bizarre even by her stream-of-consciousness lights..

The operative paragraph goes as follow: “I want to assure you that reproductive rights and the umbrella issue of women’s rights and empowerment will be a key to the foreign policy of this Administration.”

Abortion and birth control and education and the right to vote all fall under the same “umbrella.” Each one is, as Clinton said, part of “expanding opportunities for women.”

But she was not done. Just as providing economic opportunity and adequate food and water is a necessary underpinning so, too, is  ”access to family planning” [aka abortion] which “broadens the horizons and expands the vision of women everywhere.” All the women except those who’ve been killed in utero, of course.

In an opening moment of solidarity Clinton told her audience,  ”Yet we know that Margaret Sanger’s work here in the United States and certainly across our globe is not done.” That is true. They will target every protective abortion law at home and abroad six days a week and twice on Sunday.

We all must be just as diligent in opposing everything they stand for as they are in promoting them. And we will.

Read Full Post »

Operation Rescue has a fact check up about Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius’ remarks earlier this week about her position on abortion.

Fact Check: Gov. Sebelius Disingenuous With Abortion Remarks

Washington, DC – Earlier this week, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius commented on the abortion issue, saying, “While my beliefs teach me that abortion is morally unacceptable, as a public official, I have worked hard to ensure that abortions are rare, safe and within the bounds of the law.”

“Sebelius’ remarks require a serious fact check,” said Operation Rescue Senior Policy Advisor Cheryl Sullenger. “Her statement is so misleading that it is an embarrassment. Sebelius is trying to hoodwink the American people by grossly misrepresenting the reality of her radical abortion policies.”

Sebelius is considered a front runner for the cabinet position of Secretary of Health and Human Services, where she would have an opportunity to advance her extremist abortion agenda.

Fact Check:

1. “I have worked hard to ensure that abortions are rare…” Yet, in 2008, Sebelius vetoed SB 386 that would have informed women that if they are being coerced in to an abortion, they have the right to refuse. Sebelius’ veto insured that coerced abortions, a huge national problem, continue in Kansas, effectively insuring a higher number of abortions. (View documentation of coerced abortions in Kansas.)

2. “I have worked hard to ensure that abortions are…safe…” This statement is completely without any basis in fact. Sebelius vetoed bills that would have provided safety regulations in spite of evidence of several botched abortions requiring emergency hospitalization, including one abortion death. Operation Rescue bought and closed one of the mills that Sebelius referred to as meeting “the highest standards of medical care in the country.” The building was unsafe, with mold and roach infestations, out of code plumbing and electrical, and filthy conditions. (View documentation.)

3. “I have worked hard to ensure that abortions are… within the bounds of the law.” In April, 2007, Sebelius hosted a party honoring late-term abortionist George Tiller and his entire staff while Tiller was under investigation by the Attorney General and Kansas Board of Healing Arts. Two months later, Tiller was criminally charged. In May of 2007, Sebelius attended a raucous party given by Planned Parenthood on the occasion of her birthday. Five months later, Planned Parenthood was charged with 107 criminal counts, including 23 felonies related to illegal abortions. (Documentation: Tiller Party, PP Party)

“Sebelius’ patently false statements about her abortion record continue to show that she is not fit to serve,” said Sullenger.

Related Posts: Operation Rescue Documents Gov. Sebelius’ Support For Abortion

Read Full Post »

Operation Rescue is reporting that the Florida House of Representatives is calling on the State’s Attorney General to file charges against everyone involved in the death of baby Shanice after she was tossed into the trash after being born alive in an abortion clinic.

Florida House Calls For Criminal Charges In Hialeah Abortion Clinic Death

OR stands in support of the Christian Defense Coalition press conference tomorrow that will demand answers in wake of a legislative letter, the revocation of the abortionist’s license, and the filing of a civil suit

Miami, FL – The Florida House of Representatives has issued a letter to State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle calling for criminal charges to be filed against all involved in the death of a viable baby that was born alive at a Hialeah abortion clinic in 2007.

The baby, Shanice Denise Osbourne, was delivered by unlicensed abortion worker Belkis Gonzalez, who cut the baby’s umbilical cord with a pair of office scissors, then, while she was moving and struggling to breathe, shoved her into a plastic bag and tossed her in the trash. Gonzalez later stashed the baby’s body on the abortion clinic roof to hide it from authorities.

Abortionist Pierre Renelique did not show up for the scheduled abortion and arrived only after the baby had been delivered and killed. Last week, the Florida Medical Board revoked his medical license based on his negligence in this case. A civil suit was filed against those responsible for Shanice’s death earlier this month.

In a letter dated February 17, 2009, House Speaker Ray Sansom told Rundle, “The undersigned Members of the Florida Legislature from both sides of the debate on this issue strongly urge you to take appropriate action against the individuals involved in these morally reprehensible acts.”

Rev. Patrick Mahoney of the Washington, DC based Christian Defense Coalition, will hold a press conference on Friday, February 20, 2009, outside the State Attorney’s office in Miami, and will attempt to meet with the State Attorney to determine the progress of the case.

The news conference will be held in front of the E.R. Graham Building, 1350 N.W. 12th Ave. in Miami at 11:00 A.M. The public is invited to attend.

“We stand in solidarity with the Christian Defense Coalition in demanding answers as to why, two and a half years after the fact, criminal charges have not been filed in Shanice’s murder,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “We know every detail of how this living baby was killed and we know who did the killing. There’s nothing left to investigate. It’s time to bring those responsible for his heinous crime to justice.”

Read a draft copy of the letter from the Florida House of Representatives

Related Posts:Abortion Clinic Tosses Live Baby In Trash
Abortionist Pierre Renelique Stripped of Medical License

Scripture: Life Begins at Conception

Pro-Abortionists Label Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers As “Fake”, Patient Stories Disagree

Abortionist Given Probation, Horror Story From Victim Emerges

California ‘Pilot Program’ Uses Midwives To Perform Abortions, Circumvent State Law

Third Video Shows Planned Parenthood Nurse Circumventing the Law

Obama’s Abortion Ban Repeal Gets Lowest Rating

Unlicensed Abortionist Gets 3+ Years in California

“Right to Choose” Advocates Want to Remove the Choice from Doctors

The ‘Unaborted Obama’ Ad

North Dakota House Of Rep. Gives Rights To Fertilized Egg

Read Full Post »

CNSNews has posted a story describing how pro-abortionist groups and feminists are renewing their attacks against pro-life pregnancy resource centers.  They claim that these centers give misleading and false information to women and use untrained staff personnel; however, stories from patients who use those facilities paint a totally different picture.

In fact, stories about the abuses of abortionsts are in the news constantly, from abortinists facing charges of performing illegal abortions, to falsifying and destroying records, to even throwing out the corpses of aborted babies, some of which were still alive.

Pro-Abortion Activists Renew Attacks on Pregnancy Resource Centers

Wednesday, February 11, 2009
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – Feminists who gathered for a conference last week in Washington, D.C., said President Barack Obama’s pro-abortion mandate is likely to unite the pro-life movement like it did during Bill Clinton’s two terms as president. Panelists said that meant there is a need to renew efforts to discredit the pro-life movement, including defeating legislation that would support pregnancy resource centers.

In reference to that end, Christina Page, author of “How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America,” noted the Pregnant Women Support Act, sponsored by Sen. Bob Casey (D-Penn.) in the 100th Congress and reintroduced in the Senate in January.

The act calls for a range of programs to help women facing unplanned pregnancies who decide to carry their child to term, including counseling, pre-natal and postnatal health care, and the funding of “Life Support Centers to offer comprehensive and supportive services for pregnant women, mothers and children.”

“This was his attempt to say, ‘Hey listen, we can provide support for women who may not ordinarily want to terminate if they had more support,’ ” Page said. “It’s a problematic bill. One of the things it does is (support) crisis pregnancy centers and that’s a non-starter.”

“We’re not going to ever step up to the plate and accept that health centers that mislead women should get any federal money,” Page said.

Page and other pro-abortion activists and organizations claim that pro-life centers mislead women by giving them inaccurate medical information, including using untrained staff to perform ultrasounds; frightening women by telling them about the harm an abortion can cause and lying about pregnancy test results to trick women into waiting until it is too late to have an abortion.

“That’s absolutely ridiculous,” Peggy Hartshorn, president of Heartbeat International, a network of Christian pro-life pregnancy resource centers, told CNSNews.com. “Particularly for our medical clinics. The whole goal of the medical clinic is to confirm whether or not you have a viable uterine pregnancy.”

Hartshorn said that 50 percent of the 1,800 centers that are affiliated with Heartbeat International are licensed through a physician or by the state where it operates and that medical professionals conduct ultrasounds, if a client signs paperwork to confirm she voluntarily agrees to the procedure.

“We are committed to medical accuracy,” Melinda Delahoyde, president of Care Net, also a Christian pro-life organization that supports a network of more than 1,000 pregnancy resource centers across the country, told CNSnews.com.

Delahoyde said that Care Net has a national medical director and a medical advisory board made up of obstetricians and other health care professionals.

New Media Strategy

Feminists at the conference, which focused on how they can use the new media to promote their agenda, said that blogs and Web sites should be used to warn women about pregnancy resource centers.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Web site warns about a center on its Web site under the “Abortion” section.

“Family planning clinics, like your local Planned Parenthood health center, have specially trained staff who can talk with you about all of your options,” the Web site says. “But beware of so-called ‘crisis pregnancy centers.’ These are fake clinics run by people who are anti-abortion. They often don’t give women all their options. They have a history of scaring women into not having abortions. Absolutely no one should pressure you or trick you into making a decision you’re not comfortable with.”

Another page lists specific warnings, including, “[Crisis Pregnancy Centers] may tell you that you are not pregnant even if you are. This may fool you into continuing your pregnancy without knowing it. If your decision is delayed, it could make abortion more risky. It could also keep you from getting early prenatal care.”

The Washington state-based Feminist Women’s Health Center Web site puts some of its warning about pregnancy resource centers in bold lettering:

“If you discover you are seeking help from an anti-abortion facility, protect yourself from further harassment. Leave immediately and do not return. When you do locate a professional clinic that offers information about all options, be sure to tell them about your experience at the fake clinic and let them help you sort out the facts from the religious views or outright lies you have been told.”

Planned Parenthood refers visitors to its Web site to the National Abortion Federation (NAF), which provides the location of abortion clinics in all 50 states. Under the heading “The impact of Anti-Choice Activities,” the Web site says:

“The past few years have revealed a new anti-choice strategy of offering ‘counseling’ services to women. Rather than exploring the roots of a woman’s psychological distress and providing unbiased therapy, anti-choice counselors tend to direct her anger towards the abortion provider by claiming that women are misinformed about the psychological trauma that abortion inflicts. Due to the political bias of these counselors and their misuse of psychological services, women can be left feeling angry and betrayed.”

Offering options

Hartshorn said pregnancy resource centers’ mission is not to hurt women but to offer them an alternative to abortion, if they are facing an unplanned pregnancy.

“This is the irony,” Hartshorn said. “[Abortion providers] claim to be pro-choice. In fact, however, Planned Parenthood and abortion clinics provide no other options besides abortion.”

“They may inform the person that those are the two other options but they don’t provide for those options,” Hartshorn said. “Our centers, on the other hand, actually provide help. Concrete help so that people who decide to continue their pregnancies can have the help that they need to do that.”

The help at clinics associated with Heartbeat International and Care Net includes referring women to a range of resources, such as pre-natal heath care, social services, adoption, and programs that provide financial support and housing.

“The question I’m asking is what’s really going on here?” Delahoyde said. “Here you have 30,000 volunteers around the country at the local level. We’re saving hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars and we’re working at the most effective level.”

“We are about serving women in the community and we’re all free of charge,” Delahoyde said. “We’re not charging people anything for this.”

Hartshorn said that money rather than compassion for women may be the motivation behind pro-abortion activists’ attacks on pregnancy resource centers.

“No woman really wants to have an abortion,” Hartshorn said. “If that’s true — and there’s a place that will really provide her alternatives in a practical way not to have to have an abortion — of course she’s not going to choose it.”

“But that means that they’re not going to make any money from her choice,” Hartshorn said. “They make money if she chooses abortion. We make no money regardless of what she chooses. We have no financial interest in her choice, but they do.”

Under the federal Title X Family Planning Program, abortion providers receive taxpayer funds for their family planning services, including Planned Parenthood, which receives $300 million a year of taxpayer money.

Life stories

Delahoyde said that the bottom line, however, isn’t about funding but about the lives of women who are facing perhaps the most difficult decision.

“Here’s what I’d say to [pro-abortion activists],” Delahoyde said. “Let the women tell their stories.”

One of those stories was told last year during testimony in the Maryland State Legislature concerning a bill (HB 1146) urged by NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood and sponsored by Democratic State Rep. Roger Manno.

Jennifer June VanSant testified about her experience of having an abortion and finding help through a pregnancy resource center during her second pregnancy.

The bill was defeated.

Her testimony, as excerpted below, reads: “I have come here today to share my story. My hope is that you will find it to be one of hope and that you will be able to recognize the challenges and benefits to my decisions. …

“Several years ago, I was addicted to drugs. I used daily and was not interested in any sort of rehabilitation or treatment. When I found myself pregnant I was upset but I only gave one option any thought. I was not willing to quit using and so I decided very matter of factly to have an abortion. At this point, I did not believe that it was possible to have a viable pregnancy. Using a Baltimore clinic, I scheduled an appointment one day and had the procedure the next. When I arrived I sat in a large waiting room filled with people and we all seemed to be called back rather rapidly. When it was my turn, I was asked a few questions and given Zanax.  The Zanax mixed with the other drugs I already had in my system.  The interaction of these drugs left me physically and emotionally numb.  I returned to the waiting room. ‘Scary Movie 2’ was being shown on the television in the waiting room.  In retrospect, I find the choice of this movie to be quite ironic.

“The procedure lasted maybe 5 minutes. Looking back that seems like such a short period of time. In only 5 minutes, a person’s entire lifetime was erased.  After that I left and it was done. At this point I was not conscious or sober enough to recognize the ramifications of my decision, nor did anyone at this clinic present them to me. In fact most of the people I encountered there seemed sad and unhappy. I really didn’t think much about the decision I had made. Three days later I was using even more heavily, spiraled further into the cycle of addiction and chose not to deal with any of the physical and emotional results of my decisions. …

“Two years later I was still using and became pregnant again. This time I was so out of touch with reality that I was in complete denial for the beginning of the pregnancy. In the back of my mind I knew I was pregnant and didn’t want to believe it! I thought I might kill myself. I was still heavily under the influence of drugs and addiction. I didn’t know what to do. However, even in my compromised state I clearly knew the difference between the abortion and Bowie Crofton. I agreed to go to an appointment my mother arranged for me at a pregnancy clinic in Bowie, Maryland to see if my pregnancy was viable. I remember entering and feeling like everyone was looking at me. Now, I know that to be the paranoia of a severely addicted user. After greeting me, I waited for a few moments before a young lady my age walked me back to a room. It was nicely decorated, like a home. Emily was kind, considerate, and patient. While at this particular time, I was rude, disrespectful, and terrified.

“She began by clearly informing me what would happen during my visit. I would have a pregnancy test, she and I would talk, and then I would be given a sonogram joined by my mother if I so wished. Emily and I talked about my circumstance, my boyfriend (who didn’t know I was pregnant), my desire to terminate once again, and what life would look like if I chose to become a parent. I could not even grasp the idea. I recall asking Emily several questions.  The most important one to me was, ‘How could she relate at all to my circumstance?’  In a gentle, non-forceful way, she shared with me her story about her adopted brother. I listened and took it all in. We did not talk about God; Emily knew at that point I was not interested in hearing about that. We did talk about abortion since I had already had one. No decisions were made.  Emily just listened. She asked questions that made me think, which made me really not like her because the last thing I wanted to do was really think about this decision.”

“Then I met Nancy, the sonogram nurse. I was embarrassed by the size of my belly which proved me to be further along than I had expected! The moment came to view the fetus on the monitor. She asked if I wanted to look. I refused. A few moments later I could not deny the deep loud heartbeat as I turned my face to see. A tear streamed down my cheek. I turned my head, shocked that I could actually see any resemblance to a human being. Nancy spoke briefly to the health of the baby and what would be necessary to provide the optimum health for the child. Nancy told me about State funding because I did not have a job or insurance to pay for medical expenses. She emphasized the need for proper prenatal medical care and prenatal vitamins.

“As I got dressed, I cried tears of relief because these people gave me a sense that it was going to be all right. Even though I wasn’t completely convinced, no final decisions had been made. The only immediate decision I made was a vow that from the moment I saw him I would stop using drugs while I was pregnant. The next few days were hard as I occasionally glanced at the sonogram photograph and it became real. Also, the sound of the heartbeat in my head echoed over and over again. Finally, after many sleepless nights and a lot of prayer, I decided to have my child. I also decided further along in my pregnancy that I was not ready to be a parent and would make an adoption plan for my son. …

“The next few months were hard, as was the first day and many following days after leaving the hospital. My strength was not my own. Through this experience my faith was renewed. God was faithful and His Love endured. Emily called me several times during my pregnancy and was always encouraging. I also received cards and notes from others at Bowie Crofton simply telling me that they were thinking of me and the baby and hoping we were well. It meant a lot to know that the Bowie Crofton team cared about me even after I had left their facility. …

“It is my pleasure to support the work of Bowie Crofton. All of the people who work there know my son by name and they know our story. I am honored to know this group of people and believe that what they do makes a positive difference in the lives of people facing an unplanned pregnancy. …

”My life today is far more superior than I could have ever imagined, which I believe is a direct result of the positive choice I made. Thanks to the accurate information given to me by the expert, caring staff in the form of my one-on-one pregnancy counseling, pregnancy test, licensed medical sonogram, information about prenatal care, and State funding all given to me free of charge — my son and I are alive today. I am a living example of the power of what they do. And so is my son.”

Related Posts: Abortionist Given Probation, Horror Story From Victim Emerges
California ‘Pilot Program’ Uses Midwives To Perform Abortions, Circumvent State Law

Abortionist Pierre Renelique Stripped of Medical License

Abortion Clinic Tosses Live Baby In Trash

Third Video Shows Planned Parenthood Nurse Circumventing the Law

Unlicensed Abortionist Gets 3+ Years in California

“Right to Choose” Advocates Want to Remove the Choice from Doctors

The ‘Unaborted Obama’ Ad

“Operation Rescue” Submits Evidence to Kansas AG on Tiller’s Clinic

Read Full Post »

Operation Rescue is calling attention to Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who is reported to be in the running for Obama’s pick for Secretary of Health and Human Services.  She has associated with abortionists who have either been convicted, or are currently under investigation, of performing illegal abortions.

Sebelius’ Role In KS Abortion Scandal Makes Her Unfit For HHS Post

If nominated, Operation Rescue vows to actively oppose her appointment

Topeka, KS – Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is reported to be at the top of the list for appointment by President Barrack Obama as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Operation Rescue vows to oppose her nomination based on her involvement in an illegal abortion cover-up scandal.

Sebelius was first elected to the governor’s office with the help of huge campaign contributions from late-term abortionist George R. Tiller, who has earned Kansas the dubious moniker of the Abortion Capital.

“Sebelius is joined at the hip with the abortion industry,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “She owes them her political career and has been more than willing to pay them back with personal favors that have shielded them from legislation and criminal prosecution. Her corrupt abortion politics make her unfit to serve.”

Sebelius’ abortion entanglements:

• Sebelius held a secret party for Tiller and his entire abortion clinic staff in April, 2007, at the official governor’s mansion. Photos show her pointing with apparent gratitude to Tiller, holding a campaign t-shirt featuring her name. Tiller has been charged with 19 counts of illegal abortions and faces trial next month.

Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann has told Sebelius to refrain from presenting herself for Communion until she makes “a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion.”

• Sebelius has opposed or vetoed several abortion-accountability bills, including popular clinic regulation legislation in 2005.

• Sebelius meddled with an investigation by the KS Board of Healing Arts in the death of Christin Gilbert, who died from a botched abortion at Tiller’s Wichita clinic in January, 2005. The Board’s politically-motivated premature conclusions covered her veto clinic regulations. The Board was recently asked to re-open that investigation due to political corruption and new evidence.

• Sebelius attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser on the occasion of her birthday in May, 2007. PP CEO Peter Brownlie led a conga-line dance in her honor during the party. Brownlie’s clinic was later charged with 107 criminal counts of conducting illegal late-term abortions. Those charges are now pending.

• Sebelius appointed a former abortion clinic “escort” John Carmichael, a militant supporter of Tiller’s Political Action Committee, ProKanDo, to the Human Rights Commission. His name was quietly withdrawn ten months later.

• Sebelius appointed political supporter and abortionist Howard Ellis to serve on the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts after he surrendered his medical license in Missouri rather than face disciplinary action. Ellis resigned under pressure, and two months later was charged by the Board with attempting to persuade a physician to falsify records.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »