How to tell the difference between “reproductive health clinics” and Crisis Pregnancy Centers

The Curt Jester: How to tell the difference

If they want to kill your baby and want money for the abortion – you are in a “reproductive health center.”

If you tell them you want to keep the baby and need assistance and they give you the boot – you are in a “reproductive health center.”
If you are underage and tell them about your adult boy friend and they ask you to lie about your birth date – you are in a “reproductive health center.”
If the clinic was founded by an organization whose leader was a racist eugenist – you are in Planned Parenthood’s “reproductive health center.”
If the word or phrase fetus, tissue mass, product of conception is used – you are in a “reproductive health center.”
If they use the world baby – you are in a Crisis Pregnancy Center.
If they give you a free ultrasound to show you the current development of your child – you are in a Crisis Pregnancy Center.
If they offer or connect you with services to help you to deliver your child and to provide assistance after the birth – you are in a Crisis Pregnancy Center.
If the clinic is staffed mainly by volunteers or have salaries paid for by donations – you are in a Crisis Pregnancy Center.

I might add, if they want your money, you’re in a “Reproductive Health Clinic” If they offer you financial or emotional support you’re in a Crisis Pregnancy Center.

RU ready for an investigation of RU-486?

Read the whole article

Last week, the US Senate unanimously approved SC Republican Jim DeMint’s amendment to the FDA reauthorization bill stating the agency must have risk assessment and solution strategies in place with the manufacturer of RU-486 within seven months after the bill takes effect.

The abortion industry, mindless of women’s health if it interferes with abortion, bulldozed FDA approval of RU-486 during the waning Clinton days in 2000 via an acceleration process supposed to be reserved for “life-threatening illnesses.”

Since its rush approval, RU-486 has been linked to the deaths of at least seven American women, most due to toxic shock syndrome from the deadly bactium Clostridium sordellii, which may be an emerging risk of using RU-486.

The much publicized death of 18-year-old Holly Patterson in 2003 from RU-486 should have moved the FDA to pull RU-486 off the market, but it did not. It merely added a list of risks to RU-486’s label.

The FDA has now received reports of 1,050 additional women who experienced adverse events from the RU-486 regimen including 9 life-threatening incidents, 232 hospitalizations, 116 blood transfusions, and 88 cases of infection, according to DeMint.

Pro-lifers warned about the risks of RU-486 when it was approved in a blatantly political decision back in 2000, but were shouted down in a cry of women’s rights. As my prior post showed, pro-abortionists don’t worry so much about unborn women’s right to life; we see here they don’t worry so much about born women’s right to life if it would impede the spread of free abortion.

Democrats for Life of America

Democrats for Life of America has released what it calls its 95-10 Initiative, which promotes policies they claim will reduce the number of abortions in America by 95% in ten years. I would dispute their assessment of the program’s efficacy, but they are, in general, a good program.

1) Federal Funding for Pregnancy Counseling and Daycare on University Campuses
2) Provide Accurate Information to Patients Receiving a Positive Result from an Alpha-Fetoprotein Test tests
3) Make Adoption Tax Credits Permanent
4) Ban Insurance Industry Discrimination Against Pregnant Women
5) Require Adoption Referral Information
6) Women’s Right to Know
7) Provide Ultrasound Equipment
8) Increase Funding for Domestic Violence Programs
9) Parental Notification
10) Call for Congress to Fully Fund Federal WIC Program
11) Provide Grants to States to Promote and Implement Safe Haven Laws
12) Require Counseling in Maternity Group Homes
13) Require SCHIP to cover pregnant women and their unborn children
14) Federal Funding for Toll-Free Number/ National Public Awareness Program
15) Conduct a National Study & Update Abortion Data
16) Federal Funding for Pregnancy Prevention Education

There’s a brochure available which provides some details behind these proposals. Many of these are common sense and should be passed: informing pregnant women who’ve received a positive result on a test for genetic defects that those can often return false positives; making the adoption tax credits permanent will encourage people to adopt children whose lives have been spared; requiring pregnancy centers to provide information about the option of adoption to pregnant women; using ultrasound equipment to allow women to see their unborn child before making the final decision to abort; requiring teenage girls who need a parental permission to take an aspirin to inform their parents before having an abortion; promoting the freedom for women to hand over their children, no questions asked; having maternity homes provide women information on adoption; and increasing awareness of options for pregnant women.

Checking the list of sponsors and supporters I don’t see either of our Delaware Democrats co-sponsoring this, even our “personally opposed, but…” Senator Joseph Biden. Notice that this bill in no way infringes a woman’s ability to choose, just gives her al the resources she needs to make a true choice. There’s only a few sponsors on it right now so let’s see if the “safe, legal and rare” pro-choicers mean it, or if nothing more than political hot air.

European Nations Demand World Bank Continue Forcing Abortion on Developing Nations

European Nations Demand World Bank Continue Forcing Abortion on Developing Nations

For decades the World Bank has been pressuring developing nations into implementing population control in order to qualify for receipt of loans. That program accelerated during the Clinton era in the 1990s as the Bank, which is controlled by the United States, more openly insisted countries wishing to receive funding permit abortion, and institute ‘family planning’ programs.

The current Administration has attempted to alter this abortion-pushing stance with the guidance of Juan Jose Daboub, a former El Salvador finance minister, who was last year appointed as a managing director of the bank under President Paul Wolfowitz. The new health strategy sought to relax requirements that recipient countries implement population control ‘family planning’ policies as a condition of receiving loans.

However the World Bank Board of Directors deferred a decision on accepting the new health strategy on Tuesday after receiving complaints from European World Bank Directors. In an April 19 letter, a copy of which was obtained by LifeSiteNews.com, Bank Directors from Belgium, Switzerland, France, Germany and Norway demanded that the bank continue its coercive population control policy.

Rather than accepting the pro-abortion rhetoric that population control is key to development, Mosher asserts that forcing population control via financial pressure is “economic assassination.”

“Taking poor countries and deliberately eliminating their primary resource – young people,” he said, “is criminal”. He explained that developing nations with higher infant mortality rates require higher birth rates to sustain their populations. Without social security systems in place elderly parents rely on children to sustain them in old age. For all their talk of women’s rights, he said, the population controllers are doing women in developing nations no favours by forcing depopulation.

Europe is currently dealing with the consequences of a declining population, a loss of hope for the future and government retirement programs that will be bankrupt if current trends continue. Why they want to impose these results on poor nations as well is beyond comprehension. People are any nation’s most valuable resource. They bring work, ideas, and hope for the future. People are the most fundamental capital in any economy and removal of capital from an economy will always have negative consequences.

The Link Between Contraception and Abortion

How Contraception increases, rather than decreases abortion: The first in a series of primers on contraception following Father Euteneuer’s dustup with Sean hannity

Essentially:

1. Contraception promotes promiscuous sex
2. Contraception, either through design flaws or misuse, fails
3. Since pregnancy is seen as something to be avoided in the contraceptive mentality, abortion becoems the backup safety net

I noted the small flag in the background while watching this video. No wonder Father’s so fearless in confronting the evil in our days: he’s a Marine!

Delaware Right to Life Convention

Last evening I attended the Delaware Pro-Life Coalition’s 20th Annual convention. I got there late in the day due to a conflict with my parish’s RCIA retreat which I had to attend as the sponsor of one of our catechumens.

I got there to catch the tail-end of a talk by Neil Noesen who is a pharmacist who lost his job over his refusal to provide birth control pills to a patient. I missed most of the talk and some other conversations during it due to some connections I had to make, so I can’t comment on the details of it, but it would seem to me that, even ignoring the important concepts of conscience and freedom of choice, isn’t a pharmacist’s job to make sure that a patient isn’t taking medicine that would harm them?

After all, many people see more than one doctor and a doctor may unknowingly prescribe something that could have a conflict with other medication the patient is taking if the patient forgot to provide a complete list. The pharmicist is often the last line of defense against such a situation, so he the authority to refuse to prescribe medicine if harm could come to the patient. If Mr. Noesen thought that using the pill could harm the patient in this case, he had an obligation refuse to fulfill the prescription.

Another interesting thing I found is that my girlfriend, a very intelligent woman, had no idea that the pill acts as an abortifacient. Makes me wonder how many other people don’t know that one of the primary objectives of this “contraceptive” is really to prevent a fertilized egg (a human life) from implanting in the womb.

I also had an opportunity to speak with Jason Buck, although I missed his talk. Jason is a student at the Franciscan University of Steubenville who recently raised $50,000 to air pro-life television commercials across the Tri-State area. You can view those ads at his website, www.CultureOfLife.us. We had a good conversation about ideas we can use in Delaware.

The keynote speaker at the banquet that evening was Bobby Schindler, brother of Terri Schiavo, whose murder was successfully completed two years ago yesterday. He spoke about the events leading up to her execution, a word he used appropriately, and also about the work his family has done through the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation to support families who are going through similar situations with their loved ones.

After the banquet ended, I hung around and spoke to some of the local leaders about how I can help build support for life in Delaware. (As I said to Moira Sheridan, head of Delaware Right to Life, “from conception to natural death.” She responded, “I see you know the lingo.” I responded, “I am Catholic.”) I’ll be working with them on a few projects in the near future.

Finally, thanks to a friend of mine who has very little shame, a small group of us ended up going out for drinks. It was my friend Susan the Shameless, my girlfriend, Bobby Schindler, Neil Noesen, A girl named Mary from Philadelphia who does chastity education, and myself. It was good time, we discussed all sorts of topics: politics, religion, NCAA basketball, movies, TV, etc. Both of the speakers who joined us are really decent, genuinely good people.

I’m definitely looking forward to being more involved in the battle to defend life in Delaware.

While Critics Blame Catholic Church for AIDS Deaths Stats Show Just the Opposite

While Critics Blame Catholic Church for AIDS Deaths Stats Show Just the Opposite

The Catholic Church is killing “millions” because of its teaching on chastity and fidelity in marriage and needs to change its “policy” on banning condoms in the fight against HIV/AIDS, according to a popular and apparently perpetual theme in mainstream journalism.

A short examination, however, of the HIV/AIDS rates of those African countries that have a large Catholic population shows that the Church’s accusers have not done the homework or are deliberately misreporting the facts. The available statistics show that countries with a large Catholic percentage population, show significantly lower rates of HIV/AIDS infections than countries with mostly non-Catholic populations.

2003 statistics from the World Factbook of the US Central Intelligence Agency, shows Burundi at 62% Catholic with 6% AIDS infection rate. Angola’s population is 38% Roman Catholic and has 3.9% AIDS rate. Ghana is 63% Christian, with in some regions as much as 33% Catholic and has 3.1% AIDS rate. Nigeria, divided almost evenly between the strongly Muslim north and Christian and “animist” south, has 5.4% AIDS rate.

Strongly Christian Uganda continues to frustrate condom-pushing NGO’s by maintaining its abstinence and fidelity AIDS prevention programs and one of the lowest rates of AIDS in Africa, at 4.1%. Uganda’s population is listed by the CIA Factbook as 33% Roman Catholic and 33% Protestant.

Of African countries with low Catholic populations, Botswana is typical with 37.3% AIDS, one of the highest in Africa, and 5% of the total population Catholic. In 2003, Swaziland was shown to have a 38.8% AIDS infection rate and only 20% Catholic population.

This is a common myth and one that the facts just do not bear out. Catholic teaching on sexuality does not spread AIDS since Catholic teaching says to have (at most) one partner throughout your life. How would that spread AIDS? If someone is not following the Church’s teaching on sexuality by having multiple partners, how likely are they to say, “I’m going to disobey the Church by sleeping around, but I’ll make up for it by not using a condom.” That’s nonsense.

In fact, the statistics above show that a government working with the Church like Uganda has by pushing Church teaching can have a great positive effect on the spread of AIDS. Those claiming to stand up for the lives of the poor seem to speak either out of ignorance of reality or a desire to spread promiscuity no matter what the cost. Neither is very flattering when they should know better.

Forty years later, ‘Humanae Vitae’ proves prophetic

Life Will Be Victorious

If someone had predicted 40 years ago that by the Third Millennium, marriage and family life would be thriving, child abuse eliminated, abortion almost nonexistent, teenage pregnancy a thing of the past, and people in general enjoying a level of contentment and happiness unsurpassed in human history, we would not consider this person a very accurate social forecaster. A meteorologist, who was so mistaken on his predictions, would be unemployed.

On the other hand, if someone 40 years ago had predicted that in the beginning of the Third Millennium, the institution of marriage itself would be weakened as in no other moment in the history of Western civilization, sexual promiscuity and its related health problems would be rampant, abortion would be both legal and common, pornography would become culturally acceptable, and some nations would actually force their citizens to limit family size, we would have to acknowledge this person ’s wisdom and adeptness at recognizing the long-term consequences of social trends.

The argument was made that the widespread use of artificial contraception would result in every child being a wanted child, virtually eliminating child abuse and abortion. It was asserted that easy access for adolescents to contraceptives would rid society of teen pregnancy. Liberated from the repression of sexual activity, caused in part by the fear of pregnancy, advocates of “The Pill” predicted that the mental health of the general population would improve significantly.

On the other hand, Pope Paul VI, in his much-criticized 1968 encyclical letter, “Humanae Vitae” (“Of Human Life”), in the process of re-articulating the church’s teaching on the nature of marriage, identifies many of the inevitable societal consequences resulting from a redefinition of the meaning of sexual intimacy that excludes its life-giving power. He specifically cites: 1) “the general lowering of morality”; 2) an increase in marital infidelity; and 3) the effect on the young, particularly young men, encouraging a disregard for the moral law and the treatment of women as “a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment.”

Pope Paul VI also anticipated China’s One-Child Policy by predicting government policies that would attempt to impose contraception on their citizens. Pope Paul VI also foresaw that the widespread use of the artificial means of contraception would lead to a cultural acceptance of both abortion and pornography.

Was “Humanae Vitae” a desperate effort to present an antiquated morality? Or was it a prophetic statement of the truth and consequences of abandoning our traditional morals? What does the experience of the past 40 years teach us? Think about it!

If you take the time to read Humane Vitae, I think you’ll be surprised by how prophetic it was and how much it just makes sense. I accepted the Church teaching on artificial contraception but didn’t really believe it until I’d read this document. It’s so clear and well thought-out, it’s hard to argue with once you open yourself to its logic.

As as Archbishop Naumann argues in the column excerpted above, it’s hard to ague that contraception has had the effect that was promised: child and spousal abuse are more common, rapes have increased, pornography is everywhere and abortion is rampant. Without the contraception revolution, society would likely be in a much better place.

Hat Tip: The Curt Jester

Emergency Contraception Doesn’t Reduce Abortion, Isn’t Contraception and Harms Women

A review of 23 studies on the different types of “emergency contraceptives,” published in the January issue of the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, finds no evidence that use of the pill lowers pregnancy or abortion rates.

Another report, published Jan. 8, confirmed the failure of the morning-after pill to reduce abortion. A Spanish Web site, Forum Libertas, analyzed what had happened in the country since the pill’s introduction. In 2000, the year before the pill was introduced, there were 60,000 abortions, a rate of 7.5 abortions for every 1,000 women under 20.

By 2005, fewer than 506,000 morning-after pills were distributed. At the same time, however, the number of abortions that year had risen to 91,000, and the rate of abortion for women under 20 rose to 11.5 abortions for every 1,000 women.

Similar findings were reported in Britain last year. The Sept. 15 issue of the British Medical Journal published an editorial authored by Anna Glasier, director of a National Health Service unit in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Glasier wrote: “Emergency contraception has been heralded as the solution to rising abortion rates.” “Some authors have suggested that almost a million abortions could be prevented in the United States annually if every woman used emergency contraception every time she needed it.”

“Yet, despite the clear increase in the use of emergency contraception, abortion rates have not fallen in the United Kingdom,” the article continued. In fact, wrote Glasier, they have risen from 11 per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 1984 (136,388 abortions) to 17.8 per 1,000 in 2004 (185,400 abortions). She added that increased use of emergency contraception in Sweden has not been associated with a reduction in abortion rates.

Concerns had already been raised over the use of the morning-after pill in Scotland. In a report published in November 2005 by the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, Dr. Anne Williams observed that the morning-after pill “is wrongly and misleadingly labeled ’emergency contraception’ by medical and government bodies.”

“It is misleading because it conceals the fact that it may work, not by preventing conception, but by preventing further survival and development of an already existing embryo,” the report explained.

The term contraception is insufficient to describe the full effect of the morning-after pill, wrote Williams. In fact, the pill may act to prevent implantation (attachment of the embryo to the wall of the uterus), which occurs approximately seven days after conception has taken place. Contraceptives prevent conception, not implantation. “Acts which are post-conceptive cannot reasonably be included in the definition of contraception,” she stated.

The report cited evidence from seven family planning clinics, showing that more than half the women had used the morning-after pill at least once that year, and 25% had used it three or more times. Tracking health problems due to frequent use of the morning-after pill will also be problematic due to the nature of programs implemented by some governments, which include free distribution without a need for medical prescriptions.

Williams also argued that diminishing the fear of pregnancy through recourse to the morning-after pill may bring about a casual approach to entering a sexual relationship, with little excuse for a young woman to refuse. Greater sexual activity could well contribute to higher levels of sexually transmitted diseases.

Concern over the health effects of the pills were also raised by Susan Wills, associate director for education at the pro-life office of the U.S. bishops’ conference. Plan B, one brand of the morning-after pill, and other methods of “emergency contraception” are the equivalent of taking from four to 40 times the daily dose of various oral contraceptive pills in a 12-hour period, she noted in an article published Aug. 15 on the Web site National Review Online.

Read all about it