September 2011 Newsletter
Posted By cmbuuck on November 20, 2011
Excerpt from Mike Fichter’s Column—“So If I’m Willing, How Can I Stand By?—“Indiana Right to Life: Lifeline Report, August 2010—Another abortionist in the same article recalled doing an abortion on a baby at 18 weeks when she herself was 18 weeks pregnant. As she grabbed the unborn child’s leg with forceps (the baby whose life she was ending in a most brutal fashion), her own baby kicked inside of her womb. Later she described it as “one of the more raw moments of my life” that was “unmediated by my training or my feminist pro-choice politics.” Yet she remains firmly pro-abortion. No wonder the phrase “now I have seen it all” is slowly vanishing from the modern day vocabulary.
In The United Kingdom: Poll Reveals Disabled People’s Fear of Assisted Suicide—A poll commissioned by Scope, a leading British disability organization, found that 70% of disabled people are fearful that changing the law to allow assisted suicide would create pressure on those with disabilities to end their lives prematurely. More than one in three (35%) said legalizing the practice would put pressure on them personally to die, and over half (56%) said allowing assisted suicide would be detrimental to “the way that disabled people are viewed by society as a whole” [Scope NDPP Survey, 2-3/11]. Richard Hawkes, Scope’s chief executive, said, “Disabled people are already worried about people assuming their life isn’t worth living or seeing them as a burden, and are genuinely concerned that a change in the law could increase pressure on them to end their life” [Scope Press Release, 5/5/11]. The assisted-suicide debate in the UK has increased in intensity this year. At the same time, the government is proposing substantial cuts to aid many disabled people’s need to live. “Sounds a little like the United States” blogged Stephen Drake, research analyst for the US disability group Not Dead Yet. In the UK, “they’re fighting battles that may be just as imminent for us within a very short time” [NDY News Commentary, 6/14/11 Update 2011 Vol.25 No.3]. And In Canada: The Farewell Foundation for the Right to Die (FFRTD), a newly-formed, unincorporated, assisted-suicide organization in Canada, is challenging the country’s law that bans aiding and abetting another’s sucuide. The group claims Criminal Code Section 241(b) is unconstitutional and arbitrary because it deprives citizens of their right to liberty and security and denies “the right of equality to persons with physical disabilities who lack the physical ability to end their own lives.” Update 2011 Vol.25 No.2
LifeNews.com Facts Don’t Matter to Media Matters: Ella Drug Causes Abortions—Anna Franzonello [LifeNews.com] 8/3/11—In its attempt to “debunk” the claim that an abortion drug is included in the “preventive services” mandate from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Media Matters ignores a glaring fact: ella – a drug that is chemically similar to the FD approved abortion drug RU-486 – is included in the mandate. Unlike Plan B, which is a progestin-based drug, ella is – just like RU-486, a selective progesterone receptor modulator (SPRM). This means that though indicated as “contraception,” ella works the same way as RU-486, not Plan B. By blocking progesterone, a hormone necessary to build and maintain the uterine wall, ella and RU-486 can kill an already-implanted human embryo. Put another way – ella can abort a pregnancy, no matter whose definition on “pregnancy” is used. When the FDA approved ella, it did not make any assurance that it would not disrupt a pregnancy. In fact, the FDA said that ella may “affect” implanation. The FDA chose different language when it approved Plan B, saying it may “prevent” implantation but explicity stating that once an embryo implanted, Plan B would not terminate the pregnancy. Moreover, scientific studies demonstrate that ella not only prevents implantation, but can harm an “established” pregnancy. The FDA’s prescribing instruction for ella cite animal studies demonstrating high embyro-fetal loss. Planned Parenthood, proud of the role it played in ella’s development, provides significant misinformation about the drug. Planned Parenthood’s background paper on ella cites a 1998 study for the proposition that “emergency contraception prevents ovulation. It has no impact on pregnancies that are already underway.” Such confusion of ella with Plan B – drugs that work in consequentially different ways – is prevalent throughout Planned Parenthood materials. Major media outlets, and now Media Matters, also appear to be sweeping the facts about ella under the rug by focusing only on Plan B when discussing so called “emergency contraception.” Yet even the discussion of Plan B tends to relay only half the story. Media Matters neglects to mention that Plan B can work by preventing the implantation of a human embryo. This life-ending mechanism – required by the FDA to be included in the drug labeling for both ella and Plan B – is a legitimate and serious concern for many pro-life Americans. LifeNews.com Note: Anna Franzononello is a staff attorney for Americans United for Life, a national pro-life organization. She is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame of Law.