Monthly Archives: January 2014

House Passes Bill to Completely Ban Taxpayer Funding of Abortions

House Passes Bill to Completely Ban

Taxpayer Funding of Abortions

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | | 1/28/14 6:13 PM

The House today approved legislation that will put in place a complete ban on taxpayer funding of abortions that ensures abortions are not directly funded in any federal governmental program or department.

The legislation combines several policies that must be enacted every year in Congressional battles and puts them into law where they will not be in jeopardy of being overturned every time Congress changes hands from pro-life lawmakers to those who support abortions.

The House voted 227-188 for the bill with 221 Republicans and 6 Democrats voting to ban taxpayer funding of abortions under HR7 while 187 Democrats and one Republican voted against it. [ROLL CALL at end of story.]

Congressman Tom price said during the debate: “This legislation prohibits taxpayer funding of elective abortions, no matter where in the federal system that might occur. This is a position supported by the majority of Americans in a bipartisan manner. We have a responsibility, through our government, to protect the most vulnerable among us, not the least of whom are the unborn. This bill is an important step in the right direction.”

The bill has been around a few years but has only been approved in the House thanks to a pro-abortion Senate. On May 4, 2011, the House passed HR 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, on a 251-175 vote with Republicans voting 235-0 for the bill and Democrats voting 175-16 against it.

taxpayerfunding3Congressman Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican who is the lead sponsor of the bill, spoke on the House floor during debate and said it would help hold President Barack Obama accountable by ensuring no taxpayer funds are used to pay for abortions.

A majority of Americans object to the use of taxpayer money for funding abortion, according to numerous polls — including a survey CNN conducted in early April showing Americans oppose public funding of abortion by a margin of 61% to 35%.

The bill will also mitigate concerns about abortion funding in the various loopholes in the Obamacare national health care bill that various pro-life organizations warned about during debate on the law. The legislation did not contain language banning funding of abortions in its provisions and the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would fix that problem.

The National Right to Life Committee sent a letter to House members urging support for the legislation that explains how the bill will help:

“Regrettably, however, the 111th Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). During consideration of that legislation, language was proposed (the Stupak-Pitts Amendment) to apply the principles of the Hyde Amendment to the multitude of programs created by the bill, and the House initially approved that language – but no such provision was part of the enacted law, due to opposition from President Obama and the Senate majority. Consequently, the enacted PPACA contains multiple provisions authorizing funding of abortion and funding of health plans that cover abortion.”

The National Right to Life letter also commented on another lesser-known provision of the tax-funded abortion ban — it’s language to protect health care professionals who don’t want to be involved in abortions.

“The bill would codify the principles of the Hyde-Weldon Amendment, which has been appended to the original Hyde Amendment on every Health and Human Services appropriations bill since 2004. This provision would solidify important protections for health care providers who do not wish to participate in providing abortions – which is especially important in light of the Obama Administration’s February 23, 2011 action rescinding the conscience protection regulation issued by the Bush Administration.”

A new Kaiser Foundation study found that 6.1 million women will gain elective abortion coverage under Obamacare through the Medicaid expansion and new federal premium subsidies. H.R. 7 would essentially codify the executive order used in 2009 by President Obama to secure the final votes needed from pro-life Democrats in order to pass the health care overhaul.

The pro-life group CatholicVote also supports the bill as do many other pro-life groups including Americans United for Life, the Susan B. Anthony List, Liberty Counsel and Family Research Council.

“This critically important legislation is called the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act,” Brian Burch of CatholicVote said. “This legislation has been updated to deal with the horrible expansion of abortion that began with the implementation of Obamacare. The House is ready to lead. If they pass this bill, the pressure will be on Senate Democrats up for election this year in red states like Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, and North Carolina.”

HOW YOUR LAWMAKERS VOTED: A yes is a pro-life vote to stop taxpayer-funding of abortion. Democrats are listed in italics.


Ohio House Passes ORTL Adoption Reform Legislation

Ohio House Passes ORTL Adoption Reform Legislation

Sub H.B. 307 Approved 77 to 14

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                      CONTACT: Laura Beth Kirsop

DATE: Wednesday, January 29, 2014                                         PHONE: (614) 547-0099 ext. 309

COLUMBUS, Ohio–Today, the Ohio House of Representatives passed Ohio Right to Life’s adoption reform legislation, Substitute H.B. 307, with an historic bipartisan majority vote. This adoption reform will eliminate unnecessary costs, protect birth parents and adoptive families, prevent fraud and minimize the bureaucracy in the Ohio adoption process. This pro-ilife legislation now heads to the Ohio Senate.


Representative Pelanda
Representative Buchy

“Ohio Right to Life sincerely thanks Representatives Jim Buchy and Dorothy Pelanda for sponsoring our pro-life initiative,” said Mike Gonidakis, President of Ohio Right to Life. “This legislation will ensure that the adoption process is less daunting for birth parents, and more enabling to Ohio families wishing to adopt. A mother placing her child for adoption is truly the most selfless act imaginable. We owe it to birth mothers and adoptive couples to ensure our laws are compassionate and supportive.”


At present, middle-class and low-income Ohio families are essentially unable to adopt due to the accumulation of expenses of the adoption process. The adoption reform legislation targets these expenses by increasing the current $1,500 tax credit to $10,000.


“There are Ohio families who want to adopt but are simply hesitant to do so because the current process can be burdensome, emotional, and at times – heartbreaking,” said Representative Dorothy Pelanda. “This bill, in essence, will help to dramatically reduce the costs and eliminate the unnecessary time and emotional burdens while still respecting the rights of birth parents, adoptive parents, and adoptive children alike.”


The legislation’s provision regarding the pre-birth notice system will smooth the process of adoption for birth parents. This system allows a birth father to declare or deny parental rights before the birth of his child if the birth mother chooses an adoption plan. Furthermore, because of the emotional strain of allowing an adoption decree to be challenged for up to 12 months, the provisional time will be shortened to 60 days – thus eliminating the prolonged burden for all parties involved.


“I was pleased to work with the Ohio Right to Life on a bill that not only protects life – but provides more opportunities for women in this state.” said Representative Jim Buchy. “House Bill 307 is a bill that benefits Ohio women and families. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to gain support for this bi-partisan bill.”


To see a visual representation of the adoption reform, created by Ohio Right to Life, click here.


ORTL Staff with Representative Pelanda
ORTL Staff with Representative Buchy


Ohio Right to Life Logo

To learn more about Ohio Right to Life please visit our website at

Lutheran Charity Thrivent’s Donations to Pro-Abortion Groups Would Fund 34 Abortions

Lutheran Charity Thrivent’s Donations to Pro-Abortion Groups Would Fund 34 Abortions

by Pastor Michael Schuermann | Washington, DC | | 1/29/14 2:52 PM

Two weeks ago I reported that Thrivent had been granting funds to several pro-abortion organizations. The funds were granted through Thrivent’s employee gift-matching program, Gift Multiplier.

Today I can add to that report. Since at least 2006, Thrivent has been providing funds yearly through Gift Multiplier to pro-abortion groups including Planned Parenthood Federation of America, several Planned Parenthood affiliatesNARAL Pro-Choice Foundation of Minnesota, and theReligious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

In 2012 (the most recent year for which information is available), Thrivent matched at least $2,700 of donations to pro-abortion organizations. This means that Thrivent gave $2,700, and Thrivent employees donated $2,700 for a total of $5,400 given.

thriventIn 2011, Thrivent matched at least $1,373 of employee gifts to pro-abortion orgs. In 2010, at least $1,521.

Prior to 2010, Thrivent’s giving to pro-abortion organizations was in smaller amounts: 2009, at least $830; 2008, at least $450; 2007, at least $800; 2006, at least $810.

The financial gifts provided by Thrivent to these organizations are public knowledge. Certain federal-tax-exempt organizations are required to file an IRS Form 990, which is publicly available for any interested parties either from the IRS, the organizations themselves, or from certain 3rd-party firms that collect this information.

It will be argued that Thrivent’s giving to these pro-abortion organizations is relatively minimal, especially compared to the rest of Thrivent’s contributions throughout each year. If we consider only percentages, this is a valid point.

But this is assuming that all gifts are equally neutral. They are in fact not. Here’s why:

  • Every dollar of the at-least $8,484 that Thrivent has matched (for a total of $16,968) has contributed to the ending of the lives of unborn children in this country. Thrivent is culpable for this.
  • Every dollar that Thrivent is now withholding from pro-life organizations, such as pro-life advocacy groups and crisis pregnancy centers, goes to help mothers carry their pregnancies to term and children live healthy, productive, joyful lives.
  • Every dollar of that $16,968 would not be in the hands of pro-abortion organizations if Thrivent was not willingly matching their employee’s donations to any and every 501(c)(3) organization.

The cost of a typical abortion, according to Planned Parenthood, ranges from $400 to $600 depending on circumstance. Assuming an average cost of $500 per abortion, Thrivent enabled just short of 34 abortions between 2006 and 2012. Given the now prevalent use of medical abortions via abortifacient medications, and the significantly lower average cost of these types of abortions, the number of abortions funded by Thrivent is likely significantly higher.



Cathy McMorris Rogers: A Pro-Life Rock Star With a Bright Future

Cathy McMorris Rogers: A Pro-Life Rock Star With a Bright Future

by Chris Crawford | Washington, DC | | 1/29/14 11:46 AM

Last night, pro-life leader and longtime friend of the SBA ListCongresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) gave a stellar response to the State of the Union. McMorris Rodgers, the highest ranking Republican woman in Congress, is a pro-life rock star who was introduced to a nationwide audience.

After becoming the first in her family to go to college, she was elected to Congress in 2004 with almost 60% of the vote. During her tenure, she has risen to become the highest-ranking woman in the U.S. House of Representatives. In the House, she has been a strong leader in the pro-life movement, voting to ban-late term abortion and sex-selection abortion and has been a steadfast supporter of parental rights. In 2012, she was outspoken in combating the deceitful “War on Women” meme.

Rodgers’ personal story is inspiring. After being elected to Congress, she met and was married to retired Navy commander Brian Rodgers in 2006. Together, they have had three children since 2007, making McMorris Rodgers the first woman to have three children while serving in the U.S. Congress.

cathymcmorrisrodgers5In her speech last night, McMorris Rodgers discussed those three children. When their first son, Cole, was diagnosed with Down syndrome three days after his birth, McMorris Rodgers said:

“When we looked at our son, we saw possibilities. We saw a Gift from God. Today we see a six-year-old boy who dances to Bruce Springsteen; who reads above grade level; and who is the best big brother in the world. We see all the things he can do, not those he can’t. Cole and his sisters, Grace and Brynn, have only made me more determined to see the potential in every human life – that whether we are born with an extra twenty-first chromosome or without a dollar to our name – we are not defined by our limits, but by our potential.”

After working tirelessly in Congress to promote the dignity of every human life, McMorris Rogers used her primetime speech to bring that personal message to the entire country.

A wife, mother, and a strong pro-life legislator, she is an inspiration to women and girls across America. She stands in stark contrast to President Obama who last week celebrated the 41stanniversary of the Roe v. Wade by saying “this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.”

Women do not need abortion to fulfill their dreams. Rep. McMorris Rodgers gives a beautiful witness in showing how her son’s life, his ability to live and fulfill his dreams, has not damaged her ability to fulfill her own dreams, as she has become one of the leading women in American politics. She has not been “punished” with babies; she has been blessed with a family that inspires her to be a better legislator.


Obamacare Rationing is Beginning to Hit Medicare Advantage Plans for Seniors

Obamacare Rationing is Beginning to Hit Medicare Advantage Plans for Seniors

by Jennifer Popik, JD | Washington, DC | | 1/29/14 9:17 PM

In last night’s State of the Union address, President Obama continued to misrepresent his health care law while evidence of rationing continues to mount. While hundreds of thousands lost their coverage in what Politifact dubbed as the 2013 “Lie of the Year”–Obama’s now debunked promise that if you liked your plan you would be allowed to keep it–it is being reported that tens of thousands of seniors are next.

On Tuesday evening the president spoke about health insurance for seniors saying, “And we did all this [extending coverage to uninsured] while adding years to Medicare’s finances, keeping Medicare premiums flat, and lowering prescription costs for millions of seniors.”

While AP factcheckers debunked this statement, an even larger problem is lurking just below the surface. Not only have hundreds of thousands lost coverage only to find narrower networks, and less access to specialty doctors and hospitals under newly created exchange plans (more here), but seniors are now facing the same fate. Even worse, the Obama Health Care law may prevent them from using their own money to obtain plans less likely to ration care.

elderlypatientMedicare for seniors has several components, but nearly 30% of seniors in 2013 choose to receive their benefits through what is called the Medicare Advantage program. These plans work a lot like private insurance, where there are networks of physicians.

In a January 25, 2014 article in the Washington Post entitled, “Doctor Networks Cut by Medicare Advantage Plans,” Ariana Eunjung Cha, reported,

“Thousands of primary-care doctors and specialists across the country have been terminated from privately run Medicare Advantage plans, sparking a battle between doctors who say patient care is being threatened and insurers that insist they have to reduce costs and streamline their operations….

“Insurers say they must shrink their physician networks because they face billions of dollars in government-payment cuts over the next decade — reductions that are being used partly to fund insurance coverage for millions of people under the federal Affordable Care Act.”

Shockingly, these kinds of cuts and reductions are exactly what the Obama Health Care law intended.

According to an August 2010, Congressional Budget Office estimate, the Obama Health Care Law will cut $555 billion from Medicare over the next ten years. Most senior citizens know that the law will significantly cut government funding for their Medicare.

Less widely known is the law’s provision allowing Washington bureaucrats to prevent older Americans from making up the Medicare shortfall with their own funds—taking away their right to spend their own money to save their own lives.

Even before the Obama Health Care Law’s cuts, Medicare faced grave fiscal problems as the baby boomer generation aged. Medicare is financed by payroll taxes, which means that those currently working are paying for the health care of those now retired. As the baby boom generation moves from middle into old age, the proportion of the population that is retired will increase while the proportion of the population that is working will decrease. The result is that the amount of money available for each Medicare beneficiary, when adjusted for health care inflation, will shrink significantly.

In theory, taxes could be increased dramatically to make up the shortfall; however, such a proposal would be unlikely to attract popular and political support. The second alternative is rationing. Less money available per senior citizen means less treatment, including those necessary to prevent death. Many people whose lives could have been saved by medical treatment would perish against their will.

The third alternative is, as the government contribution decreases, that the shortfall could be made up by voluntary payments by senior citizens. Thus, Medicare health insurance premiums could be financed partly by the government and partly from older Americans’ own income and savings.

Through legislative changes in 1997 and 2003 successfully promoted by the National Right to Life Committee, this third alternative became law. A “private fee-for-service” option was created in Medicare under which senior citizens could choose health insurance whose value was not limited by what the government might pay toward it. These plans could set premiums and reimbursement rates for health care providers without upward limits imposed by government regulation.

Such plans would not be forced to ration treatment, as long as senior citizens were free to choose to pay more for them. For information on whether it would be possible to afford health care without rationing, see

The Obama Health Care Law indirectly amended the section in the pre-existing law allowing these plans to set their premiums without approval by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) by adding, “Nothing in this section shall be construed as requiring the Secretary to accept any or every bid submitted by an MA organization under this subsection.”

Therefore, CMS may now refuse to allow senior citizens the choice of private-fee-for-service plans that charge what CMS, in its standardless discretion, regards as premiums that are too high. Indeed, the provision literally authorizes CMS, if it decides to do so, to refuse to allow private-fee-for-service plans altogether. How the law does this exactly can be found



Pro-Life Groups Launch National Boycott of Girl Scout Cookies Over Abortion Ties

Pro-Life Groups Launch National Boycott of Girl Scout Cookies Over Abortion Ties

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | | 1/29/14 9:02 PM

National pro-life groups have banded together to launch a boycott of the sales of Girl Scout cookies over the ties the organization has to the Planned Parenthood abortion business and how it has promoted pro-abortion groups and activists.

The pro-life movement has been concerned for a number of years about the ties between the Girl Scouts and the Planned Parenthood abortion business.  Although the Girl Scout organization maintains that it takes “no position” on the issue of abortion, parents, churches, and pro-life activists have long complained of the pro-abortion slant of the Girl Scouts’ resources, role models, and affiliations.

girlscouts5LifeNews is a part of the coalition of pro-life organizations that are boycotting sales of the cookies — along with American Life League, the Pro-Life Action League, the Radiance Foundation, blogger Jill Stanek, the National Black Pro-Life Union, the Issues4Life Foundation, and Life Coalition International.

The groups made their announcement via an article in Brietbart News:

Ryan Bomberger of the Radiance Foundation, who recently gave the keynote address at the March for Life Rose Dinner in Washington, D.C., is a champion for adoption over abortion.

“The Girl Scouts still proclaim to be honest and courageous, while denying their continual collaboration with the nation’s largest and undeniably dishonest abortion chain,” Bomberger said. “Abortion doesn’t make the world a better place, unless you agree with the deeply racist and elitist pseudoscience of eugenics – the foundation of Planned Parenthood.”

Eric Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League commented , “As the father of six girls, I’m extremely disappointed by the Girl Scouts’ increasing collaboration with Planned Parenthood, an organization that aborts over 150,000 unborn baby girls every year.”

Similarly, Jim Sedlak of the American Life League told Breitbart News, “Through their continued support of the Culture of Death, the Girl Scouts have betrayed their heritage and their future. There is nobody who should purchase Girl Scout cookies to fund this group.”

Lila Rose, president of Live Action, also commented:

One of the ways Planned Parenthood has become so successful is by infiltrating and corrupting organizations that should be sanctuaries for women and young girls. We see this with the Komen Foundation, with our public education system, and, glaringly, with the Girl Scouts (GSUSA).

GSUSA’s intimate association with Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion corporation, is well-documented. But a billion-dollar enterprise glorifying sexual promiscuity, peddling hormone-altering drugs as panacea, and lobbying for physically and psychologically destructive abortion through all nine months of pregnancy has no interest whatsoever in girls’ well-being.

There are wholesome, healthy alternatives to the Girl Scouts out there. No little girl – or her parents – should have anything to do with an organization that kills over 330,000 pre-born children a year, covers up sexual abuse, advocates for infanticide, and builds its entire business model on harming women.

The Girl Scouts have come under fire repeatedly in 2014.

Fresh on the heels of Girl Scouts USA (GSUSA) sharing a recommendation for Wendy Davis as a 2013 Woman of the Year via their official Twitter account, the organization suggests HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius as a woman “with courage, confidence, and character.”

Meanwhile, the new national spokeswoman for the Girl Scouts, Kelly Parisi, is the former spokeswoman for a pro-abortion organization — one founded by Gloria Steinem.

The Girl Scouts have been criticized for their involvement in the May, 2013 Women Deliver Conference, an international event that included “safe and legal abortion” among its overarching themes. It documents its role in the planning and facilitating of the December, 2012 Bali Global Youth Forum and the outcome declaration, which demands youth access to abortion.

The ties between the two groups have been questioned ever since former Girl Scouts CEO Kathy Cloninger admitted on NBC’s The Today Show: “We partner with many organizations. We have relationships with…Planned Parenthood organizations across the country.” See the video here.

Then, in a national survey, seventeen Girl Scouts councils admit to partnering with Planned Parenthood; many other councils refuse to answer the survey question. Of the 315 Girl Scout councils in the U.S., 17 councils reported having a relationship with Planned Parenthood and its affiliates, and 49 reported they do not. The other 249 refused to disclose any relationship.

In 2010-2011 Girls Scouts in New York partnered with Planned Parenthood for a sex-ed program, “Real Life. Real Talk.” The program website touts their partners: “Real Life. Real Talk. is proud to count the following organizations, faith communities and companies as partners: …Girl Scouts of NYPENN Pathways.”

For fourteen year,s the Girls Scouts in Waco, TX co-sponsored a sex ed conference with Planned Parenthood. “It’s Perfectly Normal” a book written by a Planned Parenthood executive was  given to all children in attendance says abortion can be “a positive experience.” And in January 2012, Girl Scouts employee Renise Rodriguez wore a “Pray to End Abortion” t-shirt during off-duty




Movie “Gimme Shelter” based on this lady.

Explore our Legacy…

Mother Teresa with Baby LizaFrom Kathy DiFiore, Founder:“When I took my first pregnant teen into my own home in 1981, I never thought the day would come when I would be asking you to help support our shelters for mothers and their babies, our efforts to teach chastity and how to make better life choices, our almost 70 special needy families, and our inner city homeless women and their children.

We hope this website will provide you with a sense of who we are, the projects we support, as well as give you a sense of the value of our work.

Kathy DiFiore with President Ronald ReaganGod has truly blessed our efforts. But each and every month is a struggle. The pregnant, frightened teens keep contacting us by hotline, by email and through word of mouth. They have only us to turn to in their time of turmoil and abandonment. The homeless women appear at our door, pleading for food, clothing and just a clean, dry place to rest and feel safe. Our work can only continue with the support of people like you. Please consider donating to our ongoing work.”



You’re Right to Choose This Movie

NRL News Today
January 23, 2014   Celebrities

You’re Right to Choose This Movie


By Brent Bozell


Vanessa Hudgens

What happens when a teenager who came into the world as an unplanned teenage pregnancy ends up with an unplanned pregnancy of her own? Will she bend to all the “helpful” insistence that she needs to exercise her “right to choose” before she is, as one callous presidential contender put it, “punished with a baby”?

This is the plot of “Gimme Shelter,” a new movie that departs from the feminist pack mentality of Hollywood. Agnes “Apple” Bailey — played in a breakout role by “High School Musical” star Vanessa Hudgens — looks like a poster child for Planned Parenthood at the film’s beginning: sixteen years old, down and out after living in a series of foster homes, and now living with a drug-addicted mother who sometimes beats her.

As the story begins, she walks out on her mother and goes hunting for her father, who is now a wealthy stockbroker. She asks her father, who has not seen her since she was a baby, for a place to stay temporarily. When she discovers she is pregnant, her father’s wife drives her to the abortion clinic. It is there that she simply cannot bring herself to accept the “choice” that her parents avoided and made her (fairly miserable) life possible.

Women who choose abortion can easily rationalize about the miserable lives their children might have lived. Teenage girls in this crisis can easily see a baby as an almost life-ending event – but it’s possible to see even bad choices turn into promising lives. It’s possible to squeeze the lemons and make a terrific lemonade.

It’s amazing that this film has been made, and more amazing that it’s studded with stars — not only Hudgens, but Rosario Dawson as her mother, Brendan Fraser as her father, and James Earl Jones as a friendly and patient Catholic priest. (How many of those have we seen in the movies lately?)

After Agnes crashes a potential abuser’s car and ends up in the hospital, she meets Father Frank. With the childhood that she’s endured, it’s understandable that Agnes isn’t the most receptive prospect for a God-loves-you message. But she agrees to move into a home for unwed mothers that can help her have her baby. The journey will not be easy – her drug-addict mother wants to pull her out of the home – but in the shelter, Agnes finally finds a home — with strangers who are in the same jam that she’s in.

Inspired by the real-life story of Kathy DiFiore, the founder of Several Sources Shelters, writer and director Ronald Krauss wrote his original screenplay while spending a year in a shelter for pregnant teens, and based it on the lives of several of the shelter mothers.

Krauss wasn’t the only one who was inspired. Brendan Fraser asked to be in the movie after reading the script and spent time in the shelters with the mothers and the babies. On the last day of shooting, Krauss said Fraser “quietly told Kathy that he was donating his salary to the shelter, so he actually did the movie for nothing. It was a complete surprise to all of us.”

The movie critics will probably see this film as a preachy pro-life movie, but it should be remembered that some of these critics believe deeply that abortion is one of America’s greatest liberties. Avoiding abortion is like avoiding reality.

Washington Post critic Ann Hornaday bitterly complained a few years back that movies like “Knocked Up” and “Waitress” cheated American womanhood by failing to ponder and explicitly cherish the A-word: “It’s a setup that has some viewers, especially women who came of age in a post-Roe v. Wade America, wondering just what world these movies are living in.” She accused the film-makers of “moral hypocrisy.”

It’s odd that pro-abortion movie critics might dismiss “Gimme Shelter” as preachy when they don’t oppose sermonizing in the movies. They just oppose the sermon of life. For example, Hornaday loved “After Tiller,” a documentary sermonizing about the great hearts and deeds of late-term abortionists. The doctors “emerge as thoughtful and dedicated” and the women who enter their clinics are lauded as “the world’s experts in their own lives.”

After watching “Gimme Shelter,” it’s quite obvious that the people who run these shelters for unwed mothers are thoughtful and dedicated, and why wouldn’t the women who enter their shelters also be hailed by feminists as experts on their own lives? It’s refreshing that we can go to the cineplex and exercise the right to choose a movie that doesn’t bow to the conventional “wisdom” of feminism when it comes to teenagers in trouble. It shows there really are people out there to give hope to the hopeless — all of the hopeless.

Learn More:

Pope Francis Cheers March and Life, President Obama Cheers Abortion and Death

NRL News Today
January 22, 2014   Roe v. Wade

Pope Francis cheers March and life, President Obama cheers abortion and death

By Dave Andrusko

It was about the same time that a speaker at today’s March for Life told the huge audience that Pope Francis had tweeted his support for unborn babies and the Marchers that somebody tweeted me that President Obama had rolled out his annual January 22 message pledging his solidarity with the Abortion Industry. (You can see both below.)

PopetweetonMarchWhen I got back to the office I read it. It’s written so mechanically it doesn’t even qualify as boilerplate. A couple of thoughts as I thaw out.

Contra the President, Roe has a different “guiding principle.” Roe (and its companion case Doe v. Bolton) stood for the proposition that there is only body involved—the mother; that it’s perfectly okay to short-circuit the legislative process and announce from on high that a hundred years worth of protective state statutes were suddenly null and void; and that, as the New York Times wrote in a supportive editorial two days later, opponents should fold up their tents and go home. Here are the key paragraphs from the Times’ editorial:

ObamaonRoe”The Supreme Court has made a major contribution to the preservation of individual liberties and of free decision-making by its invalidation of state laws inhibiting a woman’s right to obtain an abortion in its first three months of pregnancy.

“The Courts seven-to-two ruling could bring to an end the emotional and divisive public argument over what always should have been an intensely private and personal matter. It will end the argument if those who are now inveighing against the decision as a threat to civilization’s survival will pause long enough to recognize the limits of what the Court has done.”

Note that from the get-go, the decision was misrepresented as allowing abortion only in the “first three months of pregnancy.” Minimizing the impact of a law that has resulted in the deaths of over 56 million babies and whose ethos has greased the skids for infanticide and physician-assisted suicide is at the core of the Abortion Industry’s wholly dishonest messaging.

Just one other comment, so obvious it only bares mentioning because it captures the pro-abortion mind at its most evasive. The President concluded

“Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom.”

Not if you are an unborn baby. Your freedom was flushed down the toilet 41 years ago by a High Court whose arrogance was matched only by its ignorance of the fundamentals of human biology.

Indeed, the decision was so slipshod that over the years even constitutional scholars who were “pro-choice” lamented Blackmun’s addlepated decisions. (See “Abortion defenders explain why Roe v. Wade was a terrible legal decision”)


Born Babies Save Lives—Their Own and Others by Their Umbilical Cord Stem Cells

NRL News Today
January 21, 2014   Adult Stem Cells

Born Babies Save Lives—Their Own and Others by Their Umbilical Cord Stem Cells

By David Prentice, PhD

Dr. David Prentice

Dr. David Prentice

This year we mark the 41st anniversary of the onset of tragedy; a tragedy because of the horrific loss of life, and many more lives than we realize. The legalization of abortion in the U.S. by the Roe v. Wade decision has cost over 56 million preborn babies their young lives since that fateful day in 1973.

The numbers are staggering, difficult to grasp; the U.S. has lost more lives than the population of many entire countries such as South Africa or South Korea, almost as many deaths as the entire population of Italy or the United Kingdom. But those aren’t the only lives lost or scarred as a result of abortion in the U.S. There is no accurate number of the women who lost their own lives, as well as those who have been physically and psychically scarred by abortion. The victims are often silent and unknown, but seriously harmed.

And yet the number of lives lost as a result of abortion is even more than that. Because many lives could have been saved from the delivery of those babies, by the collection and use of adult stem cells from the umbilical cords of those born babies. We could have doubled the lifesaving, by letting babies live and be born, and using their umbilical cords to save life from that life saved.

This life-saving resource is an important part of the vast array of safe, proven, ethical alternatives to embryonic stem cells. It is a largely untold story that outlets such as National Right to Life News Today are doing their best to publicize.

Umbilical cord blood stem cells have become an extremely valuable alternative to bone marrow adult stem cell transplants, ever since cord blood stem cells were first used for patients over 25 years ago. The first umbilical cord blood stem cell transplant was performed in October 1988, for a 5-year-old child with Fanconi anemia, a serious condition where the bone marrow fails to make blood cells. That patient is currently alive and healthy, 25 years after the cord blood stem cell transplant.

Since that time, over 30,000 cord blood stem cell transplants have been done around the world, and transplants have increased for various blood and bone marrow diseases and leukemias, as well as for genetic enzymatic diseases in children. Cord blood stem cell transplants have also become more common for adults with leukemia. Cord blood transplants have been especially helpful for racial and ethnic minorities.

Bone marrow adult stem cell transplants require an exact match between donor and recipient, and it can sometimes be difficult to find a donor match for a patient, especially for minorities. But umbilical cord blood stem cells can be used with some mismatch and still provide successful treatments.

The Wall Street Journal recently noted the increased interest in umbilical cord blood by scientists and doctors seeking stem cell cures. Besides current treatments, cord blood stem cells are now being studied for their potential to treat many more diseases, including Type 1 diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis, as well as congenital heart disease and cerebral palsy. The story quotes Dr. William Shearer, professor of pediatrics and immunology at Baylor College of Medicine:

“It’s a disposable item that Mother Nature provides us with… It’s a renewable source. It’s free and why not use it?”

Since the first umbilical cord blood stem cell transplant over 25 years ago, over 600,000 cord blood units have been stored away around the globe for future lifesaving transplants. Just two examples of public programs to collect and store umbilical cord blood stem cells are the National Marrow Donor Program (motto: “You could cure someone’s blood cancer by giving birth”) and the National Cord Blood Program, and additionally there are commercial cord blood storage companies, involved in collection, storage, and research. The data so far show that cord blood stem cells can be stored frozen for over 20 years without loss of potency.

And it’s not controversial. As a recent news story in the Washington Times showed, many more states are turning to ethical, successful adult stem cells, providing real hope and real treatments for thousands of people. One such state, Kansas, last year initiated a unique Midwest Stem Cell Therapy Center that will treat patients, do research on new therapies, educate the public and professionals on the advantages of adult stem cells such as those from cord blood and the solid umbilical cord, and train physicians to deliver those treatments. Paul Wagle was appointed by Governor Brownback to represent the patient community on the new Advisory Board for the Kansas Center. Paul received an umbilical cord blood stem cell transplant for his leukemia in 2005. Partly as a result of the successful treatment, Paul developed an interest in science and earned a triple major from Benedictine College in Kansas in 2013, and is now in seminary. The Kansas Center has already treated its first patient and held its inaugural scientific conference.

Here are just a few other examples of the double lifesaving from a born baby and the saved cord blood.

Mary Lou Rusco also received umbilical cord blood stem cells for her leukemia. She received the treatment from doctors at the Kansas University Medical Center, and is now free from leukemia.

Joe Davis, Jr. was diagnosed with sickle cell anemia, at only a few months old. His parents were told that he wouldn’t survive to be a teenager, and they couldn’t find a bone marrow match for him. But along came younger brother Isaac, whose umbilical cord blood stem cells saved Joe Junior’s life.

Chloe Levine received an innovative cord blood stem cell transplant at Duke University to treat her cerebral palsy. She’s now a happy healthy little girl.

As Tom McClusky of the March for Life has noted, this lifesaving stem cell research strikes the right cord for life!