Monthly Archives: March 2014

New Analysis Shows Obamacare Exchange Plans Restricting Access to Life-Saving Prescriptions

New analysis shows Obamacare exchange plans restricting access to life-saving prescriptions

 

By Jennifer Popik, JD, Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics

Jennifer Popik, JD

A new analysis out from consulting firm Avalere Health shows the denial of life-saving medication is rampant in the new Obamacare exchange plans.

Elise Viebeck, in her March 24, 2014, piece from The Hill “Prescription drugs: Harder to get in O-Care?” writes,

ObamaCare participants are twice as likely to face administrative barriers to using certain prescription drugs as people who receive health coverage through an employer, according to a new analysis. The research from consulting firm Avalere Health points to a little-known facet of policies on the ObamaCare exchanges known as “utilization management controls.” The controls allow insurance companies to limit access to certain medications to try and control costs and prevent abuse. People who enroll in ObamaCare plans are likely to encounter the hurdles if they’re prescribed brand-name cancer or mental health drugs, Avalere found.

At least 51 percent of brand-name mental health meds come with special controls on the exchanges, compared with only 11 percent on the employer-based market, the analysis found….The controls may include policies like “step therapy,” when patients must try cheaper medications before receiving coverage for an alternative that costs more, or “prior authorization,” which means an insurer grants coverage of prescriptions on a case-by-case basis.

As Obamacare continues to roll out, it has faced trouble on many fronts. As signups lag behind target, the Obama Administration announced a new delay, meant to entice people into the state health care exchanges. On March 26, 2014, the Administration gave an extra window for enrollees who had begun (but haven’t completed) the Affordable Care Act signup process by the March 31 deadline.

All throughout the debate leading up to the controversial 2010 law, and up until late last year, the Obama Administration kept asserting that “if you like your plan, you can keep it.” But by last December, the fact checker PolitiFact was awarding this assurance its “Lie of the Year” for 2013.

When hundreds of thousands having lost plans they liked, the administration moved on to its next claim–that “the new exchange plans would be better than your old plan.” This new promise is already proving to be at odds with the facts.

As millions of Americans are attempting to start using their new Obamacare exchange health insurance plans, stories about denial of payment keep piling up. You can read more on this here.  The limits on prescription drug coverage are just the latest evidence.

While many are quick to blame insurance companies, the real culprit is the Obamacare provision under which exchange bureaucrats must exclude insurers who offer policies deemed to allow “excessive or unjustified” health care spending by their policyholders. Prescription drugs are often a costly part of these plans.

Under the Federal health law, state insurance commissioners are to recommend to their state exchanges the exclusion of “particular health insurance issuers … based on a pattern or practice of excessive or unjustified premium increases.” The exchanges not only exclude policies in an exchange when government authorities do not agree with their premiums, but the exchanges must even exclude insurers whose plans outside the exchange offer consumers the ability to reduce the danger of treatment denial by paying what those government authorities consider an “excessive or unjustified” amount.

This means that insurers who hope to be able to gain customers within the exchanges have a strong disincentive to offer any adequately funded plans that do not drastically limit access to care. So even if you contact insurers directly, outside the exchange, you are likely to find it hard or impossible to find an adequate individual plan. (See documentation at www.nrlc.org/medethics/healthcarerationing.)

When the government limits what can be charged for health insurance, it restricts what people are allowed to pay for medical treatment. While everyone would prefer to pay less–or nothing–for health care (or anything else), government price controls prevent access to lifesaving medical treatment that costs more to supply than the prices set by the government.

While Obamacare continues to roll out in 2014, it is important to continue to educate friends and neighbors about the dangers the law poses in restricting what Americans can spend to save their own lives and the lives of their families. You can follow up-to-date reports here: powellcenterformedicalethics.blogspot.com

Read the Transcript from the Oral Arguments on the Obama Mandate and see the Frightful Place the Mandate’s Logic Takes Us

Read the transcript from the oral arguments on the Obama Mandate and see the frightful place the mandate’s logic takes us

 

By Dave Andrusko

Hobby Lobby co-founders David Green and Barbara Green

I had a chance this afternoon to read the entire 100+page transcript from Tuesday’s widely anticipated Supreme Court oral arguments in which the justices heard an extremely thoughtful challenge to the HHS mandate which compels employers to provide health coverage for drugs and procedures to which they have moral or religious objections.

We’ve commented previously on the 90-minute back and forth on “Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby” and “Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius” (nrlc.cc/1iBhOKX and nrlc.cc/QgOVKJ), so this post will be more of a series of hopefully informed impressions.

I suppose it’s fairly common, but the lawyer for the plaintiffs had not completed his second sentence before former Solicitor General Paul Clement was interrupted by Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Her line of questioning was one she (and other justices, particular Elena Kagan) used as a kind of moat to try to separate the Obama mandate from Clement’s extremely effective attacks.

In a word if Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood can successfully argue a religious objection, then (in Justice Kagan’s words) “you would see religious objectors come out of the woodwork.”

As he always is in front of the justices, Clement was unflappable. Each case is different, he argued, and the “parade of horribles” offered up by the government is hypothetical and unconvincing.

The justices who favored the Obama mandate kept trying to find some irresolvable scenario that would force Clement to back off. Each one they offered—including what happens if a single stockholder in a company does not have a religious objection to providing health coverage for a particular drug or procedures –-Clement provided a perfectly rational, acceptable answer to.

You had to feel sorry (sort of) for Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who is not nearly as quick on his feet as Clement is. (Every time he said he wanted to “walk” the justices through a particular point, he stumbled.)

Click here to read the February/March issue of
National Right to Life News,
the “pro-life newspaper of record.”

He made it to his third sentence before Chief Justice John Roberts politely asked if Verrilli’s opening words weren’t “inconsistent with RFRA,” the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was at the core of the defense relied on by the plaintiffs.

Understandably a debate on what the RFRA meant/means took up a lot of time.

Verrilli had the unenviable task of trying to demonstrate that the government had a “compelling state interest” in requiring what Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood opposed providing, given the many exemptions the Obama administration had provided. Verrilli had a particularly difficult time with the “grandfathering” clause [allowing people to hold onto old insurance policies that don’t meet the new ObamaCare requirements], both explaining why it was used and predicting when (in the foreseeable future) it might expire.

As the Los Angeles Times’ Jon Healey described the exchange, “As [Chief Justice John] Roberts noted, there’s no date certain for grandfathered plans to be eliminated. In theory, they could continue until all of their current holders reach retirement age and switch to Medicare.”

This intersected with the question of why mandating the services Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood objected to furthered “a compelling governmental interest.” As Healey put it (summarizing a line of questioning from Justices Roberts and Samuel Alito), “If it’s so compelling to require employers’ health plans” to include this coverage, “why did the Affordable Care Act allow people to hold on to ‘grandfathered’ plans that didn’t include the coverage?”

There was one other very important point begun with question from Justice Alito: “What about the implications of saying that no for-profit corporation can raise any sort of free exercise claim at all and nobody associated with the for-profit corporation can raise any sort of free exercise claim at all,” which is the government’s position.

What about abortion? Justice Anthony Kennedy put it this way:

“Under your view, a profit corporation could be forced — in principle, there are some statutes on the books now which would prevent it, nut — could be forced in principle to pay for abortion.”

Verrilli responded:

“Well, I think that if it were for a for­ profit corporation and if such a law like that were enacted, then you’re right, under our theory that the for­ profit corporation wouldn’t have an ability to sue. But there is no law like that on the books.”

In the four minutes he was given in rebuttal time, Clement picked up on Verrilli’s less than sterling response. Clement said

“Let me start with the Abortion Conscience Clause, because it tells you something about where Congress has drawn the line and it tells you the consequences of the government’s position. Historically, those conscience provisions have applied to all medical providers, including for-profit medical providers. But we learned today that as far as the government’s concerned, that’s just Congress’ judgment. If Congress changes its judgment and says that a for-profit medical provider has to provide an abortion, RFRA doesn’t apply. That, with all due respect, cannot be what Congress had in mind when it passed RFRA.”

Please join those who are following me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.

Federal Court of Appeals Upholds the Re-Prioritization of Planned Parenthood Funds Formula

Federal Court of Appeals Upholds the Re-Prioritization of Planned Parenthood Funds Formula

Dear Statewide Media,

This week, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Kansas law that re-prioritizes family planning funding from Planned Parenthood and to public health departments.  As you know, last summer, Governor Kasich signed a similar family planning funding strategy into law in Ohio. AP reports,

“The appeals court panel rejected Planned Parenthood’s claims that losing the family planning money amounted to a violation of free-speech rights for associating with abortion providers. It also said that the supremacy clause does not necessarily entitle Planned Parenthood to a court order forcing the state to continue the family planning funding.”

Ohio Right to Life is encouraged to see the federal courts affirm our family planning funding in other states. Since our law’s beginning stages, we took great care to ensure that it was constitutional and would therefore effectively protect the conscience rights of taxpayers and advance health care in Ohio. We are gratified to see it working.

For questions, please contact Laura Beth Kirsop, Director of Communications, at 614.547.0099, ext. 309.

Best Regards,

Katie McCann

Public Relations Manager

To learn more about Ohio Right to Life please visit our website at
http://www.ohiolife.org/

Day of the Unborn Child

March 25

Day of the Unborn Child
March 25, 2014

Today Catholics the world over celebrate the great Feast of the Annunciation.

When Our Blessed Mother gave her fiat to the Archangel Gabriel, the Son of God took on our human nature and began to grow in her immaculate womb.

Which is why pro-life activists the world over mark today as the Day of the Unborn Child.

It is for that reason I decided to send you an email Robert Muise just sent me. As you’ll recall, Rob is the Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of the American Freedom Law Center and the lead attorney in our Priests for Life lawsuit against the unjust HHS abortion mandate of ObamaCare. Here’s the email he sent me:

Fr Pavone: Reminder: our petition for review with the Supreme Court is scheduled to go to conference on Friday, March 28th. Pray that the Court accepts it. We will likely know the outcome within a couple of days. Remember, if the Supreme Court denies the petition, it will have no effect on our appeal in the D.C. Circuit, and we can still seek review in the Supreme Court after the circuit court rules (assuming we don’t prevail—if we do prevail, it is likely that the Solicitor General will seek review, in which case, it is highly likely the Supreme Court will grant review). Much to pray for during this Lenten season!

I’ve sent you this email to ask you to do exactly as Rob asks:
PRAY THAT THE SUPREME COURT ACCEPTS OUR PETITION FOR REVIEW.

Please pray RIGHT NOW and continue to pray until you receive an email from me informing you of the Court’s decision.

In fact, today, I am at the Supreme Court, speaking at a rally for religious freedom. The Court is hearing arguments regarding how the HHS Mandate applies to for-profit businesses.

Our case, on the other hand, would bring the Court to decide how it applies to not-for-profit religious entities, like Priests for Life.

In addition to praying for the Justices on the Supreme Court, PRAY ALSO for the three judges who will decide our appeal to the D.C. Circuit that Rob mentions. This is our appeal of the terrible and unjust ruling Judge Sullivan handed down last December against Priests for Life.

As Rob put it so well:

MUCH TO PRAY FOR DURING THIS LENTEN SEASON.

Finally, as long as I’m sending you this email, if all possible …

Your dollars will be used to advance both the cause of life in America, and especially our legal fight to protect your right to speak out against the injustice of abortion without fear of government coercion!

Please be as generous as you can today.

Both with your PRAYERS and with your FINANCIAL SUPORT. Priests for Life desperately needs them.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/

Thank you. May God bless you. And know that in heartfelt appreciation for your support, I remember you at ever Mass I offer; as do all the priests of Priests for Life.

Sincerely,

Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director
Priests for Life and Gospel of Life Ministries

P.S. If you wish to make a contribution to the Priests for Life Legal Fund or in support of all our life-saving work. Thank you again and God bless.

NOTE: If you prefer to send a check, please make it out to Priests for Life and send it to us at PO Box 141172, Staten Island, NY 10314. If you have any questions, call us toll-free at 888-735-3448.

 

New Smart-Phone “Appcessory” Allows Moms to Hear Unborn Child’s Heartbeat

New Smart-Phone “Appcessory” Allows Moms to Hear Unborn Child’s Heartbeat

By Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., NRL Director of Education & Research

Pro-lifers have told people without fail that “abortion stops a beating heart,” but perhaps no technology made that clearer than the fetal heartbeat stethoscope, allowing mothers and dads to hear the “whoosh-whoosh” of their unborn child’s pumping circulatory system. That is, until maybe now.

For years, the fetal heartbeat stethoscope was a specialized piece of medical equipment largely used within the confines of a pregnant woman’s Ob-Gyn. As a mom shared the experience with other members of her family, her friends, or her co-workers of the wonder of the “whoosh,” her accounts were largely second hand.

Now, though, thanks to a new smart-phone “appcessory” featured in the March 6, 2014 issue of Laptop Magazine, a woman can hook a microphone and amplifier up to her iPhone, hold the microphone next to her belly, and listen to her baby’s heartbeat whenever and wherever she wants.

And she can share that amazing experience with anyone she wants!

The new Bellabeat Tracking System sells for $129 and can be used by phones with either an iOS or an Android operating system. The BabyWatch companion app not only enables the mother to hear the heartbeat, but also allows her to see a colorful, moving display of her baby’s vital signs.

There’s no pocket ultrasound yet, but the Bellabeat tracking system also delivers information on the child’s weekly development and offers the mom a chance to log each kick. A calendar helps a mom track her prenatal appointments and reminds her to take her folic acid supplements. (Tips about singing and talking to the baby are also included.)

As noted one of the features is the ability to connect and share this data via social media. As meaningful as this might be to the expectant mother and father, this new phone app has the chance to influence public perceptions of the unborn child even more widely.

This will make it harder than ever to dismiss the unborn child as just a “clump of tissue.”

The device has been licensed by the FDA, but no one is suggesting that this app take the place of regular visits to a woman’s obstetrician. Women will need to learn how to distinguish the baby’s heartbeat from the rush of their own blood flow. However there is little doubt that this will prove a fascinating and attractive accessory to many young mothers of the smart-phone generation.

More than that, though, it may end up being another valuable pro-life educational tool making the broader public more aware than ever before of the humanity of the unborn child.

Editor’s note. Please send your thoughts to daveandrusko@gmail.com

Source:

http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2014/03/new-smart-phone-appcessory-allows-moms-to-hear-unborn-childs-heartbeat/

 

Supreme Court Justices to Consider Hearing Priests for Life Case Against HHS Mandate

Supreme Court Justices to Consider Hearing Priests for Life Case Against HHS Mandate

March 24, 2014

Below is my latest column, Just a Pinch of Incense, which has to do with activity this week at the Supreme Court, including from Priests for Life!

We have learned that by the end of this month, the Supreme Court will decide if they will review our lawsuit against the HHS Mandate! This is big news. We are asking everyone to please pray a special nine day novena to reverse the unjust HHS mandate. The prayers can be found at Priestsforlife.org/novenas/hhs-mandate.htm. When you go to that page, please indicate at the bottom that you are saying the novena, and please spread the word.

And, as my column indicates, I will be praying at the Supreme Court tomorrow as the Court hears the cases regarding the mandate as they apply to businesses. Join me if you can, from 9:30 to 11:30am in front of the Supreme Court! After my column below you can read a related press release.

On other matters, the Silent No More Awareness Campaign has posted on its website a partial list of women who have died from abortion, see SilentNoMoreAwareness.org/DeathsFromAbortion. You can help the Campaign give these women a chance to be “silent no more” by sharing this page with others.

Also, please join me for a special Medical Decision-Making webcast on Thursday, April 3 from 9 to 10 pm Eastern Time. My guests will be Bobby Schindler of the Terri Schiavo Life and Hope Network and Priests for Life medical advisor, Dr Matt Harrison. We will talk about what kinds of questions you should ask your doctor and your priest regarding whether or not to begin or continue various kinds of medical treatment for yourself or your loved ones. We will lay out some principles and describe the problems and challenges we face in our society – and we will also tell you about some resources you can use. Sign up at PriestsForLife.org/webcast. After you sign up, a page will appear with the information you need to listen either by phone or internet. I look forward to speaking with you on April 3.

Please join in praying a Lenten Prayer for Life that can be found at PrayerCampaign.org. Also, don’t forget to order Easter Prayer for Life Prayer Cards for yourself, or your Church congregation. You can order at ProLifeProducts.org.

Blessings,

 

Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life

Praise for our work

Alveda, ..I wanted you to know how much of an encouragement and inspiration you are to women such as myself. … I am so thankful for the things that you do and most importantly that you do it in the name of our most Holy Father. I am proud to see a woman who is a public figure fighting for the life of innocent babies, A woman who is speaking out in love for her sisters in Christ, not love for herself. You exemplify true “feminism” to women like me and I genuinely appreciate you. You make a difference not only in the large scale but in our daily lives. – Jessica

Just a Pinch of Incense

Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life

W. A. Criswell, in The Offense of the Cross, points out,

“The Roman Empire was the most tolerant, the most liberal, the most wise, and the most accurate in its handling of the many provinces and religions of its empire of any kingdom that ever existed. Men could worship, have temples, and do as they pleased. And yet the Roman Empire and the Caesars persecuted the Christians. Why? For one simple reason: the Christian refused to compromise his faith with any other religion whatsoever.”

That refusal to compromise is seen in the response of the apostles themselves to the command not to teach in the name of Jesus: “We will obey God rather than men!” As it was in the beginning, so it is now. Christians in America face another one of those key moments – seen frequently in Scripture and Christian history – of conflict between the commands of civil authority and the demands of their faith. And believers of other traditions are standing with them as well.

The Obama Administration, implementing one of the provisions of “Obamacare,” has declared its intent and goal to increase access to various “preventive services” that include contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs. This is an open, publicly-announced plan. Numerous Americans, and the religious traditions they embrace, teach that such “drugs and services” are immoral to use. Therefore, they oppose this plan.

But the conflict goes deeper than that. If those believers are also employers who offer their employees health insurance, the Obama Administration is requiring them to cooperate in the plan by making coverage for those drugs and services an essential part of those health insurance plans.

And that’s where we say “No!” If the government wants to expand access to these immoral – and in some cases lethal – activities, it’s going to need to do it without us. We do not want to be involved.

And that is the argument regarding the HHS mandate, and the theme of the multiple lawsuits that have been introduced against it. We at Priests for Life filed the fourth of what are now dozens of such lawsuits launched both by religious groups and for-profit businesses.

On Tuesday, March 25, the Supreme Court is hearing two consolidated cases on behalf of two of those businesses, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods, run by believers who refuse to cooperate with the mandate. The Court will consider, among other things, whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to for-profit corporations to protect them from this mandate.

In a separate action, the Supreme Court is also being asked to take up the matter of the non-profit and religious entities who object to the mandate, and whose rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act are not in doubt. We at Priests for Life have petitioned the Supreme Court to hear our case, and this Friday, March 28, the Justices will consider whether or not they will do so.

The claim that the government is making is that it is in fact exempting the religious groups like Priests for Life from following the mandate. In fact, President Obama himself addressed this in his February 2 interview with Bill O’Reilly. The President said, “Here’s the way this thing works. All they have to do is sign a form saying they don’t — they are a religious institution —And — and they get what they want.”

In other words, the form we are being asked to sign states that we object to the mandate because of our institutional religious convictions. Then, our insurance policy will not have to include coverage of the objectionable drugs and services.

At first glance, that sounds quite reasonable to sign. But what the government says further is that upon us signing the form, and receiving the names of our employees on the plan, they will make separate provision to cover the objectionable drugs and services. In other words, by signing the form, we are still part of implementing the plan to provide access to those drugs and services. The form is an authorization; our employees are covered precisely because they are our employees. It’s not a matter of who pays for it; it’s a matter of being the gateway to the immoral activities.

President Obama, in his O’Reilly interview, seems to indicate that he understands this. He said, “The problem is they don’t want to sign the form — Because they think that that somehow makes them complicit.” Exactly right. And Mr. President, that’s not only what we and the other religious plaintiffs think; that’s precisely what our religion teaches. And the freedom to follow that teaching is precisely what you and the law need to respect.

All this may seem like a big deal to be making over the signing of a form. But to go back to W.A. Criswell, he points out, “When the Christians were invited just to bow down before the Roman image, their lives could be spared if they would merely take a pinch of incense and put it on the fire that burned in the presence of the image of the Roman Caesar. The Christian died rather than compromise with a pinch of incense.”

Whether it’s about government incense or a government form, we will obey God rather than men.

This column can be read and listened to online at Priestsforlife.org/columns/4926-just-a-pinch-of-incense

Comments on this column? Go to Askfrfrank.com

Fr. Frank’s columns are podcast. See Priestsforlife.org/podcast

Remember to support our work at Priestsforlife.org/donate

Press Release: Fr. Pavone to Pray and Speak at Supreme Court on Tuesday

Priests for Life awaits response from Court re HHS Mandate

Washington, DC – Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, will join other Americans concerned about the right to life and religious freedom at a rally in front of the US Supreme Court on Tuesday morning, March 25, when the Court will hear oral arguments in regard to the HHS Mandate. Further Supreme Court action on this matter is expected on the 28th in regard to Priests for Life.

The rally for religious freedom will take place from 9:30 to 11:30am ET.

Planned Parenthood is also expected to bring people to rally in favor of the mandate.

The oral arguments in the consolidated cases of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods will begin inside the court at 10 and conclude at 11:30.

Priests for Life has been urging people to join a novena of prayer during these days for the reversal of the mandate. The prayers for each day can be found at PrayerCampaign.org.

“This is a moment of Biblical proportions,” Fr. Pavone explained. “Scripture, and all Christian history, are filled with moments of conflict between civil authority and people of faith. At every point, those people are called to obey God rather than man.

“We at Priests for Life also have a lawsuit against this mandate, and in fact were among the first to file one. We too have a petition to the Supreme Court to hear our case, and the Justices will consider whether they will do so this Friday, March 28,” Fr. Pavone commented. “The case being heard on Tuesday concerns the rights of for-profit businesses; in our case, the Court would be considering the rights of non-profit religious entities. Obviously, the Court eventually needs to address both.”

In its petition to the Supreme Court on behalf of Priests for Life, the American Freedom Law Center points out, “this challenge goes to the very core of Priests for Life’s reason for existing as an organization. Consequently, Petitioners are well situated—and perhaps best suited—to challenge the mandate and its application to non-exempt, nonprofit religious organizations.” The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has also consolidated the case brought by the Archdiocese of Washington and its related institutions together with that of Priests for Life.

Fr. Pavone concluded, “In the end, the matter is simple: We love our faith; we love our country, and we want to be able to do both at the same time.”

 

Priests for Life
PO Box 141172
Staten Island, NY 10314
Phone: 888-PFL-3448
718-980-4400
Fax: 718-980-6515
Email: mail@priestsforlife.org
http://www.priestsforlife.org

 

Statement from Ohio Right to Life on Planned Parenthood Protest

Statement from Ohio Right to Life on Planned Parenthood Protest

The following statement can be attributed to Mike Gonidakis, President of Ohio Right to Life:

“By protesting Attorney General DeWine and not President Obama, Planned Parenthood proves its hypocrisy, aligning itself with the Democratic Party rather than Ohio’s women. According to the White House, 96 percent of businesses do not have to provide free birth control and abortion drugs to employees. But rather than protesting the President for exempting 96 percent of businesses from this requirement, Planned Parenthood pulls a childish publicity stunt, protesting Attorney General DeWine for supporting the exemption of a Christian-run business from the Obamacare mandate. Planned Parenthood’s so-called ‘protest’ against Attorney General Mike DeWine reveals that it is nothing more than a hypocritical, partisan, Democratic front group. Their loyalty is to President Obama and the Democratic Party–not Ohio’s women.”

Please direct any further questions to Laura Beth Kirsop, Director of Communications, at 614-547-0099 ex. 309.

The mission of Ohio Right to Life is to promote and defend the right to life of all innocent human beings, from the time of fertilization until natural death.

To learn more about Ohio Right to Life please visit our website at http://www.ohiolife.org.

Pro-Lifers “don’t quit. That’s why they’ve been successful.”

Pro-Lifers “don’t quit. That’s why they’ve been successful.”

Hard Work Pays Off for Pro-Life Ohio

The Toledo Blade’s Sunday paper gave a wide spread to pro-life Ohio’s success in closing abortion mills in 2013. At Ohio Right to Life, we wanted to make sure that pro-lifers continue to see the results of our collective advocacy for life. A former abortion clinic owner even attributed the clinic closings to the efforts of Ohio’s pro-life community, saying pro-lifers “don’t quit. That’s why they’ve been successful.”

To read the article:

http://www.toledoblade.com/Medical/2014/03/23/Michigan-abortion-clinics-see-an-influx-of-Ohioans.html
We want to thank every one of you for working with Ohio Right to Life to pass pro-life initiatives and for all of your everyday efforts to help Ohio women choose life. At the beginning of 2013, there were 14 abortion clinics in Ohio. We are well on our way towards halving that number. Because of our hard work, Ohio children are winning!

Let us continue to stand faithfully for life as we venture closer and closer towards an abortion-free Ohio.

With you for Life,

The Team at Ohio Right to Life

To learn more about Ohio Right to Life please visit our website at http://www.ohiolife.org.

“Joseph’s House for Women” a Home for Pregnant Women on Syracuse’s North Side that represents “All things bright and beautiful”

 

“Joseph’s House for Women” a home for pregnant women on Syracuse’s North Side that represents “All things bright and beautiful”

 

By Dave Andrusko

From left, Maria Miller, vice president of operations and Kitty Spinelli, executive director, of Joseph's House, pose for a photo in the playroom.  Ellen M. Blalock eblalock@syracuse.com

From left, Maria Miller, vice president of operations and Kitty Spinelli, executive director, of Joseph’s House, pose for a photo in the playroom.
Ellen M. Blalock eblalock@syracuse.com

At the end of January we had a huge response to my post on the movie, “Gimme Shelter” (“Gimme Shelter and the art of battling giants”). As you recall, the unpretentious but inspiring story of this fiercely independent pregnant teen is based on the real-life experiences of girls who came to Several Sources Shelters, a home for unwed pregnant teens founded by Kathy DiFiore.

I thought of that when a friend forwarded me a link to a story that appeared in today’s (Syracuse, New York) Post-Standard newspaper.

The headline for Marnie Eisenstadt’s story was “Grandmothers turn their fight against abortion into a Syracuse home for babies.” Eisenstadt does a wonderful explaining the motivation behind the work of Kitty Spinelli, the executive director of “Joseph’s House,” and Maria Miller, who has done most of the fundraising.

Joseph’s House for Women was created to give pregnant women an alternative to abortion. It opened yesterday for staff.

It “will begin accepting expectant mothers in April,” Eisenstadt writes. “To start, it will take up to eight pregnant women. After they give birth, mothers can stay with their children for up to two years.”

Indeed the first pregnant women will arrive in April (one has a baby due in April, the other in May).

Joseph’s House for Women was Spinelli’s dream,” Eisenstadt explains. “One day, as the Roman Catholic mother and grandmother from Skaneateles prayed outside Planned Parenthood for an end to abortion, the idea came to her. Why not build a place where pregnant mothers in crisis can come, have their babies, and stay to learn how to parent and build a life? She and Maria Miller, also a grandmother, began earnestly fundraising a year ago.”

You can’t help but be uplifted by the grassroots manner in which they raised the money to start the house, the many and varied sources from which they raised a whopping $600,000 in a year.

This enterprise was built on small donations. Eisenstadt cited some examples cited by Spinelli and Miller:

“A family left a piggy bank and baby bottles full of their spare change. Inside, they tucked encouraging notes for the mothers and babies.

“A little girl sent a $5 bill for the babies, with her name scratched on the front of the envelope.

“Families and seniors have signed up to send what they have: $8 and $10 monthly donations.

“A teen-aged girl asked for money for the house instead of birthday presents.”

But like all non-profits women-helping centers, sweat equity was a big component in the establishment of Joseph’s House for Women. Volunteers spent a lot of their own time renovating the house and finding supplies for the moms and their babies.

Eisenstadt writes that the Salvation Army has apartments that house 50 women between 16 and 21 and their children annually. “Other programs in the area could take pregnant homeless women, but Joseph’s House would be the first home designed specifically for them,” she explains.

Generosity made Joseph’s House for Women possible and continuing generosity will be needed to keep it serving the needs of pregnant women.

Eisenstadt ends her story with Spinelli reflecting on the “stream of unexpected generosity”:

“In the middle of a donated computer lab sits a glass piggy bank. It is half-full. Spinelli doesn’t know who it’s from. She just knows it’s from someone who believed in her dream so much that they scraped up what little they could to help.

“She plans to keep the piggy bank in Joseph’s House as a reminder of the everyday miracles that built it.”

Please join those who are following me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.

SOURCE:
 

Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Mandate next week

 

Supreme Court to hear challenge to Obama Mandate next week

 

By Dave Andrusko

hobbylobby5Next week, Tuesday to be specific, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in what may well be the most watched cases of this term: the hugely controversial HHS mandate which compels employers to provide health coverage for drugs and procedures to which they have moral or religious objections.

This represents the first legal challenge to ObamaCare to reach the Supreme Court since it upheld the law’s “individual mandate” 21 months ago.

In the lower courts one of the two plaintiffs prevailed — Hobby Lobby Stores—while the other lost–-Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. Both are family owned corporations. Hobby Lobby is a chain of arts-and-crafts stores while Conestoga Wood Specialties is a Mennonite-owned cabinet maker.

As Richard Wolf of USA Today wrote this morning, the mandate has “been the subject of more than 100 lawsuits across the country, including 78 that are still pending.”

The core arguments raised by the plaintiffs are that the mandate violates the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion clause.

Click here to read the February/March issue of
National Right to Life News,
the “pro-life newspaper of record.”

When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, David Green, Hobby Lobby’s founder and CEO, said “This legal challenge has always remained about one thing and one thing only: the right of our family businesses to live out our sincere and deeply held religious convictions as guaranteed by the law and the Constitution. Business owners should not have to choose between violating their faith and violating the law.”

Kyle Duncan, general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and lead lawyer for Hobby Lobby, said at the time, “This is a major step for the Greens and their family businesses in an important fight for Americans’ religious liberty.” In an interview with POLITICO, Duncan said, “The cases will decide ‘who gets to exercise religion — it’s really that simple. The idea that the protection of religious liberty is confined to only certain pursuits … from our perspective, that’s disturbing.’”

The financial penalties for non-compliance are staggering, particularly for Hobby Lobby which employees 13,000 workers. The fine is $100 per day per employee–$475 million for Hobby Lobby.

Last June the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Hobby Lobby in a 5-3 ruling.

In July the 3rd U.S. Court of Appeals rejected Conestoga Wood Specialties’ request for an exemption from the mandate which are regulations adopted by the Department of Health and Human Services under a provision of ObamaCare, formally known as the “Affordable Care Act.”

Please join those who are following me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.