Life Advocacy Briefing

No US Tax Money for UNFPA

THE STATE DEPT. LAST WEEK NOTIFIED CONGRESS the White House is withholding nearly $40 million appropriated for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) in compliance with the annually enacted Kemp-Kasten Amendment. The provision disqualifies from US funding any agency or organization “which supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.”

The Bush Administration found in 2001 that UNFPA does abet the coercive “one-child” depopulation pogrom being carried out against the Chinese people by the Beijing government. Each year since Pres. George W. Bush took office, the White House has invoked Kemp-Kasten to defund UNFPA, and last week’s action, together with a seven-page report, signals the State Dept. and White House are continuing to find UNFPA complicity in Chinese genocide.

Abstinence Education in Limbo

THE EXTENSION OF TITLE V (FIVE) ABSTINENCE EDUCATION has been caught up in partisan wrangling over the reauthorization of Medicare, to which it has been attached.

Though the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Charles Grassley (R-IA), had reached agreement on extending the federal grant program through which abstinence education has been jumpstarted in the states, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) blocked the Medicare extension legislation before last week’s week-long Independence Day recess. The legislation expired June 30.

How the abstinence program fares when Congress returns today (July 7) and through this month of Congressional contention may depend on whether decent, God-fearing Americans take the trouble to contact their Members of Congress and Senators to urge their support for federal funding of abstinence education. Calls may be placed via the Capitol switchboard at 1-202/224-3121.

Tiller Off the Hook Again

A CITIZEN-INITIATED GRAND JURY IN KANSAS has adjourned without bringing charges against notorious Wichita abortionist George Tiller.

The grand jury issued a statement explaining what it saw as a legal bar, under state supreme court case law, to any likely successful prosecution under the state’s late-term abortion “ban.”

We reprint the grand jury’s statement at the close of this Life Advocacy Briefing as a warning to lawmakers who gullibly believe they are doing something effective when they fall for judicially mandated loopholes instead of standing up to the judges and persisting on principle. How will voters know to rebel against judicial tyrants if their own elected representatives – and certain of the pro-life organizations advising them – acquiesce as pathetic sheep?

The grand jury’s statement makes clear – at least to us – that basing abortion laws on the situation of the abortion-vulnerable mother, rather than on the human nature of the prenatal boy or girl, allows abortion practices to remain a “subject for a medical judgment, not a legal one.” The critical result of the US Supreme Court’s dastardly Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton edicts is that abortion has been rendered a matter of complete privacy, not only for the mother contracting for the killing of her child but, tragically, for the so-called doctor, whose motives and practices are beyond review either by decent citizens or by those officials charged with enforcing what should obviously be the law.

We urge our readers to examine closely the arguments of the grand jurors, while bearing in mind that the district attorney who provided them legal support, Nola Foulston, is a shameless advocate of commercialized abortion.

Getting It Right

ARIZONA GOV. JANET NAPOLITANO (D) HAS SIGNED legislation establishing a judicial process by which a surrogate decision-maker can be barred from directing medical personnel to withdraw food and water from a patient who cannot communicate.

Though limited in scope, the new law, which passed the State Senate 17 to 9 and the House 39 to 19, is based on the proper presumption that a patient is entitled to nutrition and hydration regardless of his inability to make his own appeal for life.

It was inspired by the stunning story of Jesse Ramirez, injured May 30, 2007, in an auto accident. “Barely 10 days after the accident,” reports LifeSiteNews.com, “Jesse’s food, water and antibiotics were withdrawn. He was then transferred to hospice, where he would have died.” But attorneys for Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) “were successful,” reports LifeSiteNews, “in restoring food, water and treatment to the young Gulf War veteran.”

The patient was “eventually transferred from hospice care to a rehabilitation facility,” reports LifeSiteNews, “walked out of the facility in October 2007, and continues his remarkable recovery at home.”

Commented ADF senior counsel Gary McCaleb, quoted by LifeSiteNews, “‘This law ensures that seriously injured patients will not suffer the consequences of a hasty decision that could result in death by starvation or dehydration.’”

Court Consents to ‘Informed Consent’

THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA HAS BEEN GIVEN PERMISSION by the federal 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to enforce its 2005 statute requiring abortionists to inform their customers of abortion’s implications and to obtain their written consent before killing their prenatal offspring.

We agree with Priests for Life’s Fr. Frank Pavone that the June 27 ruling lifting an injunction against the law “is a victory for basic truth.” But we deplore the near-automatic assumption, with the enactment of each state law limiting abortion in any way, that federal judges are the arbiters of the will of the people and the regularity with which taxpayers must defend duly enacted statutes when they touch the sacrosanct industry of abortion.

“The court held,” noted Fr. Pavone, “that the law’s requirement that a woman be told that an abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being ‘generates little dispute.’ Many within the abortion industry have actually admitted this for a long time,” noted Fr. Pavone. “It’s good that the courts are catching up,” he said. But it is truly disturbing that the courts even entertain enjoining such laws to begin with.

Ireland Resisting Potential Abortion Coercion

THE PEOPLE OF IRELAND HAVE REJECTED, by referendum vote, the European Union’s Lisbon treaty, concerned that the pact would strengthen the EU’s powers in the fiercely independent country. “New polling has found that abortion was a significant factor,” writes Hilary White for LifeSiteNews.com, “in the rejection of the … treaty.

“In the weeks following the referendum on June 12, European lawmakers and EU diplomats have speculated that if only the real reason could be found for the Irish rejection,” reports LifeSiteNews, “appropriate changes could be made to render the treaty more palatable for a second vote.” But despite no changes actually being proposed, “Pressure is increasing on the Irish government,” reports LifeSiteNews, “to hold another vote next spring to bring back the desired result to Brussels.”

Speculation has centered about a variety of knotty provisions which could have precipitated the rejection, such as immigration, taxes and representation in the European Parliament. But a poll commissioned by the Irish Sunday Business Post now shows, reports LifeSiteNews, “that simpler and more visceral matters were in the minds of the Irish on June 12. Although the pro-life warnings about abortion were dismissed by the Electoral Commission,” reports LifeSiteNews, “58% of those who voted against the treaty believed that it would make abortion more likely in Ireland, against 28% who disagreed. Of those who believed Lisbon made abortion more likely, a massive 74% voted No, the Sunday Business Post reported,” according to LifeSiteNews.

Curiously, the leader of Ireland’s Catholics, Cardinal Sean Brady, Archbishop of Armagh and primate of all Ireland, is stepping forward to aid Brussels in its campaign to reverse the treaty’s rejection in a new referendum. Cardinal Brady, reports Britain’s Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) citing Catholic World News as source, “wants people to reflect on the help that the [EU] has given and could give the country,” asking that “the nation … reconsider the European Union’s Lisbon treaty.”

Poland’s president “is refusing to ratify the treaty though the [Polish] parliament approved it,” reports SPUC citing BBC as source. “The Czech president is also reluctant,” reports SPUC, “and Germany’s constitutional court is to rule on challenges to ratification.”

European Parliament Pushing Abortion

THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE’s PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY has adopted a resolution ostensibly intended to discourage abandonment of newborns but actually, reports Britain’s Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), endorsing “‘legal and easier access to sexual rights and reproductive health services’ such as ‘contraception and abortion.’”

Remarked SPUC national director John Smeaton, “What kind of world do politicians live in where they call for the abortion of children in order to avoid their abandonment at birth? Quite apart from the cruel fate of the children aborted,’” he noted in the SPUC report, “‘this policy will result in the abandonment of the mothers who are being aborted and the continuation of the social problems which the [accompanying] report claims to address.

“‘The resolution’s title describes abandonment as the first form of violence,’” reported Mr. Smeaton. “‘Yet this is untrue. The first form of violence is abortion.’”

Though some 636 assembly members were eligible to vote, reports Hilary White for LifeSiteNews.com, quoting SPUC lobbyist Patrick Buckley, “‘just 65 attended the debate and only 40 voted.’ … The resolution was approved by 39 votes to 1.”

The ABCs of AIDS Prevention

June 30, 2008, FRC Washington Update by Tony Perkins, president, Family Research Council

Rep. Henry Waxman’s opposition to abstinence may resonate with liberal leaders, but it isn’t winning over many African converts. The [Democratic] California Congressman, who for seven years has claimed that condoms are the most effective method for curbing disease, has finally met his match in Uganda, where the head of the country’s National AIDS Prevention Committee is calling on Americans to “let [his] people go” and allow Africans to prevent AIDS with what works – namely, abstinence.

In a powerful op-ed in today’s Washington Post, Rev. Sam Ruteikara writes that “in the fight against AIDS, profiteering has trumped prevention. AIDS is no longer simply a disease; it has become a multi-billion dollar industry.” He goes on to say that Uganda devised a strategy to prevent AIDS called ABC (Abstain, Be Faithful or use Condoms), “but our main message was: Stick to one partner. We promoted condoms only as a last resort. Because we knew what to do in our country, we succeeded.”

Indicting the international AIDS lobby, Ruteikara says, “But international AIDS experts who came to Uganda said we were wrong to try to limit people’s sexual freedom. Worse, they had the financial power to force their casual sex agendas upon us. … As fidelity and abstinence have been subverted, Uganda’s HIV rates have begun to tick back up.”

Ruteikara, like so many US proponents of abstinence, is frustrated that the government insists on a strategy of risk reduction through condoms instead of the better solution – risk prevention.

Here in America, the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) is demonstrating the failure of this approach. Between 2001 and 2006, a new study shows that HIV infection in young gay men rose 12% a year. For African-Americans, the rate was 15%. Our response should be to heed Ruteikara’s advice. “Tell men and women to keep sex sacred – to save sex for marriage and then remain faithful. Listen to African wisdom, and we will show you how to prevent AIDS.”

Wichita Grand Jury Retreat Statement

Released by Kansas 18th Judicial District Attorney Nola Foulston, July 2, 2008

We the Grand Jury were charged with investigating alleged violations of the laws related to abortion at the Women’s Health Care Services, Wichita, Kansas. After six months of conducting an investigation that included hearing extensive witness testimony, reviewing volumes of documents and medical records of patients of Women’s Health Care Services, this Grand Jury has not found sufficient evidence to bring an indictment on any crime related to the abortion laws.

We believe that the Kansas State Legislature has made an earnest attempt to limit viable late-term abortions by including the words “substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function …” in the statutory language of KSA 65-6703. This statute prohibits the abortion of a viable fetus unless there is a finding by two legally and financially unaffiliated physicians that an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman or that a continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. Our perception is that these words were used to insure that only the gravest of circumstances would allow the abortion of a viable fetus. However, the medical records reviewed by this Jury revealed a number of questionable late-term abortions with regard to the diagnosis of “substantial and irreversible impairment.” As the current law is written and interpreted by the Kansas Supreme Court, late-term abortions will continue for many circumstances that would seem, as a matter of common interpretation, not to meet the definition of “substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”

The Kansas Supreme Court has stated that in order for our abortion statute to be constitutional, it must be construed to contain an exception to preserve the mental health of the woman – her mental health being part of a major bodily function. The Court has further indicated that if a review of the relevant circumstances surrounding a woman’s pregnancy and subsequent abortion revealed no more than a reasonable medical debate over the condition of the patient and the threats posed to her by continuing her pregnancy to term, no crime has been committed by the performance of the abortion. The woman’s condition is the subject for a medical judgment, not a legal one. If two legally and financially unaffiliated physicians, properly exercising their professional judgment, determine that the continuation of a pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function (including a mental condition), a late-term abortion may lawfully be performed. The fact that another physician may differ with the conclusions of the other two doctors regarding the existence of a “substantial and irreversible impairment” does not convert an otherwise lawful act into an unlawful one.

Unless and until the State Legislature is willing to amend the present statutes and provide clearer and more definitive guidelines regarding “substantial and irreversible impairment” or impose new or additional statutory limitations on the ability of a woman to obtain an abortion of a viable fetus, we doubt that any investigation into the practices and procedures of Dr. Tiller and the Women’s Health Care Services will yield an outcome that will provide any basis for indictment.