Life Advocacy Briefing

June 21, 2010

Off Schedule / Don’t Unleash Another RU! / Presidential Posturing?
/ Bit Player? Not Planned Parenthood! / Past Time to Defund PP /
Stop the Burris Outrage
/ Crist Takes Sides, Vetoes Life Bill
Kudos to a Non-Activist Judge!

Off Schedule

EXPECT NEXT WEEK’s LIFE ADVOCACY BRIEFINGto be a couple of days late. Our tech guy will be out of town several days, including on the day of our press deadline, so we expect to be publishing on Monday, June 28, instead of on the Friday before.


Don’t Unleash Another RU!

THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH DRUGS ADVISORY COMMITTEE to the Food & Drug Administration voted last Thursday to recommend FDA action to unleash ulipristal acetate (“Ella”) on the US market. The vote came after a hearing at which Concerned Women for America (CWA) testified on behalf of women’s interests and common sense. Though the advisory committee’s vote is not binding, the FDA is expected to go along. Another sad day in ObamAmerica.

The European drug is being touted as a more convenient form of the “morning-after pill,” since it can be taken up to five days after intercourse rather than the three-day limit recommended for its already marketed competitor Plan B.

But as offensive as marketing of Plan B is, Ella is not its equivalent; chemically, it more closely resembles RU-486, an admitted – indeed, touted – abortion pill. It is a progesterone blocker, which interferes with the lining of the womb to render it inhospitable to an already conceived embryonic human being. The principal difference between RU and Ella is that the RU-486 is prescribed when the baby’s life has been detected; Ella would be sold on an in-case basis.

CWA last Wednesday released the outline of points CWA president Wendy Wright would make before the advisory panel. Our readers are invited to incorporate those points into discussions with their elected representatives and candidates. Here is the outline, quoting CWA:

    • Ella operates in the same manner as the abortion drug RU-486 by blocking progesterone receptors. This interferes with the uterine lining, impacting embryos that have not yet implanted and those that have implanted, aborting a pregnancy.
    • Women will take Ella thinking it’s a morning-after pill, when in fact, it is an abortion pill.
    • If Ella is easy to access, women will be victims to it being slipped to them without their consent. This has already happened numerous times with other abortion-causing drugs. Drugs that can cause an abortion, while touted as giving women more control over their bodies, are just as easily used by men to exploit women.
    • Advocates for the morning-after pill claimed that it would dramatically reduce pregnancies and abortions. Now they admit that’s not true. They also admit that morning-after pills are not as effective as previous studies – which the FDA relied on – claimed.
    • The same advocates claim that RU-486 is safe, but the families of the women who died from that drug will beg to differ.
    • Proponents excuse the selling of an ineffective drug to women who are not at risk of getting pregnant as a “woman’s right.” In reality, what they cloak as a woman’s “entitlement” is a façade to promote their own ideological crusade.
    • The FDA should not unleash Ella on unsuspecting women – a drug promoted by activists with a history of overstating the efficacy of reproductive drugs while understating the overall risks to women.


Presidential Posturing?

WE ARE MYSTIFIED by Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, being touted by some as a potential 2012 GOP Presidential contender after building an admirable record on policies of budgetary control, business climate improvements, can-do Hoosier boosterism and even pro-family policies.

Overcoming a Washington-based resume, Gov. Daniels was on his way to being seen as a credible conservative hero. But in a series of media interviews earlier this month, he stated and reiterated a commitment to putting “social issues” aside in a “truce” which he claims is needed to pull America out of the morass in which we find ourselves. He could not even respond to a query as to whether he would reinstate Pres. Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City Policy, which would withhold foreign development aid from organizations (like International Planned Parenthood Federation) which advocate for abortions overseas. The current President lifted the policy in 2009 as one of his first acts in office.

What a contrast with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who not only wields a sharply honed budget ax but chose Planned Parenthood funding as one of the first institutional sacred cows to be slain. (Considering that the New Jersey Republican not only ripped Planned Parenthood funding out of the state budget but followed up by withdrawing his predecessor’s federal waiver request to assure federal funding for PP in his state, our conclusion is that Gov. Christie’s dragon slaying was not accidental but well thought out, with some grasp of the root social and fiscal problems which PP and friends bring to a community and state.)

Mr. Daniels states his priority of controlling spending; how can that agenda not include cutting out Planned Parenthood? How can a budget-cutting priority not include “social issue” conservatism? And how can tipping back on just one leg of the GOP’s three-legged stool (fiscal, social & defense conservatism) propel the governor of a rural state to his party’s nomination? ’Tis a mystery, Mr. Daniels, or more likely, a blunder of your own making.


Bit Player? Not Planned Parenthood!

ANYONE WHO THINKS PLANNED PARENTHOOD OCCUPIES AN INCIDENTAL PLACE in the public budgets of our country had better take a look at a newly released report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO); the report can be read in its entirety by checking out the following Internet site:

The 33-page report was released last Wednesday at a news conference led by Texas Rep. Pete Olson, who had organized 25 other GOP House Members and five Republican Senators in seeking the examination of federal funding levels for Planned Parenthood and other major organizations constituting major elements of the sexual delinquency industry.

“The report reveals,” writes a Capitol Hill aide in a memo summarizing the news conference, “that over the reporting period [7 to 8 years] the selected organizations spent roughly a billion dollars in federal taxpayer funds, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America received over half of that billion dollars.

“Specifically, Planned Parenthood Federation of America received 657.1 million dollars over seven years,” writes the aide, “which averages just under 100 million federal taxpayer dollars each year – and that does not include state and local taxpayer funding. Notably,” writes the aide, “these funds underwrite abortion promoting organizations but do not directly pay for abortion due to the Hyde and Helms Amendments. However,” notes the aide, “by providing cash to groups like Planned Parenthood, the federal government enables all of their activities.”

The aide goes on to list six sex-focused organizations covered by the report, noting that “depending on which numbers were more reliable, either disbursement data or expenditure data [are] listed.” Here is the list:

    • Advocates for Youth ($8.7 million over eight years)
    • Guttmacher Institute ($12.7 million over seven years)
    • International Planned Parenthood Federation ($93.8 million over eight years to affiliates willing to comply with the Mexico City Policy when it was in place)
    • Planned Parenthood Federation of America ($657.1 million over seven years)
    • Population Council of the United States ($284.3 million over seven years)
    • Sexuality Information & Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) ($1.6 million over eight years)

As if such massive sums of blood money were not enough, in his statement following up the news conference, Rep. Olson quoted the GAO report’s acknowledgment: “Expenditures in this report may understate the actual amount of federal funds the selected organizations and their affiliates spent.” Really.

Joining Mr. Olson in seeking the GAO report were the following Members of Congress, whom we thank and who should be thanked as well by our readers ( or, or via local offices or the Capitol switchboard at 1-202/224-3121). From the House, GOP Leader John Boehner (OH) and Representatives Trent Franks (AZ); Duncan Hunter (CA); Doug Lamborn (CO); Vern Buchanan (FL); Paul Broun & Phil Gingrey (GA); Mike Pence (IN); Steve King (IA); John Fleming & Steve Scalise (LA); Roscoe Bartlett (MD); Michele Bachmann (MN); Todd Akin (MO); Scott Garrett & Chris Smith (NJ); Walter Jones (NC); Jim Jordan (OH); Joe Pitts (PA); Marsha Blackburn (TN); Joe Barton, Kenny Marchant, Ron Paul & Lamar Smith (TX); and Paul Ryan (WI). And, from the Senate, Senators Sam Brownback (KS), David Vitter (LA), James Inhofe (OK), Jim DeMint (SC), and John Cornyn (TX).


Past Time to Defund P.P.

THAT G.A.O. REPORT on federal funding of Planned Parenthood should bolster the prospects for legislation filed by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN).

The Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act is a replay of legislation he has attempted in the past. The current bill number is HR-614; it was referred to the House Committee on Energy & Commerce on Jan. 22, 2009, and has been resting peacefully there ever since. Some 94 Representatives are co-sponsoring the bill with Rep. Pence.

The Indiana Republican issued the following statement after receiving the GAO report revealing the scope of Planned Parenthood’s connection to the federal treasury:

“It is morally wrong to end an unborn human life by abortion,” noted Rep. Pence. “But it is also morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use those funds to promote abortion.

“This [GAO] report confirms that the largest abortion provider in America is being bankrolled by American taxpayers,” Rep. Pence said. “In these tough economic times, there is simply no reason why taxpayer money should go to fund the activities of abortion providers and equip them with the resources they need to end innocent human life.

“We must stop providing taxpayer dollars to abortion providers through Title X,” he urged. “We must put an end to Americans unwillingly providing financial support to the abortion industry. The time has come to deny any and all federal funding to Planned Parenthood by passing the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act.”

We at Life Advocacy would add, since it is past time to enact such legislation, and since the GAO has now furnished the ammunition needed by taxpayers to mount a strong case for the Pence bill, it is time for every pro-life American to demand an answer from their candidates for Congress to the following question: Will you vote for the legislation by Rep. Mike Pence to defund abortion providers under the federal government’s Title Ten program? Or will you vote to continue taxing us to fund adults who seek to contribute to the sexual delinquency of our teenagers?

Whether or not such an issue comports with Indiana’s governor’s rather delicate taste, it is a matter of great urgency which should rise to the lips of every taxed-enough-already American and would be an excellent place to begin the arduous task of quenching the federal spending orgy.


Stop the Burris Outrage

GIVEN THE SPEED with which legislation can move in Washington, pro-life Americans should take every opportunity – and not wait for the inevitable alert bulletin – to urge their US Senators to strip the Burris Military Abortions Amendment from the Defense Authorization bill pending in the upper chamber.

Message to Senators: “Please vote to pull the Burris Amendment from Defense Authorization; military hospitals and personnel should not be used for killing unborn children. And if the amendment is not stripped, please vote against the bill itself.”

Senators may be contacted via the Senate Internet website at and by calling the Senators’ local offices and the Capitol switchboard at 1-202/224-3121.


Crist Takes Sides, Vetoes Life Bill

HE FINALLY DID IT. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (I) vetoed legislation June 11 which would have barred taxpayer funding of abortions in Florida, advocated a state opt-out from ObamaCare’s abortion mandate and offered abortion customers an opportunity to view an ultrasound of their developing babies.

The Left-tilting former Republican stated in his veto letter, quoted by Christian Post reporter Nathan Black, enacting the proposed law “‘would violate a woman’s right to privacy. … Individuals hold strong personal views on the issue of Life, as do I,’” Mr. Crist claimed. “‘However, personal views should not result in laws that unwisely expand the role of government and coerce people to obtain medical tests or procedures that are not medically necessary.’”

Wait a minute, Mr. Crist. How can barring tax funding of abortion and rebuffing the ObamaCare abortion mandate in Florida be called “expand[ing] the role of government?” Isn’t the proposal actually a limitation on “the role of government?”

The legislation would have been, reports Mr. Black, “what some called one of the strongest pro-life measures in the state’s history.” But then, notes Mr. Black, the governor who bolted the GOP in order to dodge a sure primary loss in his quest for the US Senate has apparently scrubbed his campaign’s Internet website, which used to “contain a strong stance against abortion.”

The leftwing American Civil Liberties Union of Florida “applauded [Mr.] Crist’s decision,” writes Mr. Black, “calling the veto a victory for women’s rights, privacy and health care.”

The Orlando-based Christian legal firm Liberty Counsel, in an electronic mail appeal seeking support for gubernatorial approval of the measure, had declared, quoted by Mr. Black, “‘The bill provides valuable information to women facing a difficult decision regarding their pregnancy. … The bill also bans the use of taxpayer money for the funding of abortions and expresses the desire that Florida opt out of participation in the federal healthcare plan.’”


Kudos to a Non-Activist Judge!

A JUDGE IN CONNECTICUT HAS REJECTED the claims of two doctors that the state’s statute outlawing abetted suicide would allow them to prescribe lethal drugs to “consenting patients,” writes Peter J. Smith for, “who were expected to die anyway.”

The pair of plaintiffs “asserted in their lawsuit against the state,” writes Mr. Smith, “that ‘assisted suicide’ is not the same thing as ‘aid in dying’ – a claim [Judge Julia] Aurigemma flatly rejected.”

The judge wrote in her dismissal decision, quoted by LifeSiteNews, “‘[The statute] is aimed at precisely the situation presented by the plaintiffs – aiding a terminally ill patient, in unbearable pain, to end his or her own life – and precisely the situation in which physicians are most likely to participate.’”

The lawsuit was backed, reports LifeSiteNews, “by the pro-euthanasia group Compassion & Choices (formerly the Hemlock Society).” Attorneys for the state resisted the plaintiffs’ claims and defended the obvious intent of the statute. The judge, reports Mr. Smith, “agreed with the state’s arguments, declaring ‘the commentary to and legislative history of the statute make it quite clear that assisting a suicide, even for humanitarian reasons, is a crime.’”


Permission granted to quote with attribution. Reproduction rights granted only by express authorization.