Feeds:
Posts
Comments


2017 KC Royals scoreboard ad for Pro-life group, subject of petition

Under the heading, “Kansas City Royals, stop lying about abortion,” an online petition group, Ultraviolet, is currently urging its followers to contact the baseball team to “cut ties with the Vitae Foundation” for “promoting extreme anti-choice propaganda” to women and children.

This pro-abortion campaign comes on the heels of a successful campaign to censor pro-life ads on a local radio station at the behest of Planned Parenthood Great Plains.

But, as usual, it is the pro-abortionists doing the bullying who are untruthful.

First, about the Kansas City Royals. …

On Friday, the Kansas City Star covered a petition against the Royals, and described the source as “a national women’s advocacy group,” Ultraviolet.

Ultraviolet is actually an online petition group supporting abortion among a variety of liberal causes. The group began in 2015 and is guided by former staff from MoveOn.org.

The Vitae Foundation, on the other hand, is a highly respected, Kansas City area non-profit, formed 25 years ago to “encourage a culture of life through research-based messaging and mass media.” The mission of Vitae (the Latin term “for Life”) is to “encourage dialog in a non-threatening manner.”

Ultraviolet’s outrage is aimed at radio ad buys during Royals’ broadcasts, and a sponsorship that allows an announcement about Vitae Foundation and a foundation logo shown on the scoreboard.

The ‘offending’ electronic scoreboard on the Ultraviolet website petition is last year’s image, which is as subtle and inoffensive as the new one. The 2017 display is a photo of a mom gazing at a baby with this message: “VITAE Celebrating Our 25th Anniversary of Life-Saving Media /A Real Game Changer.”

What exactly is the dangerous propaganda in that display which is unfit for baseball fans?

“Vitae has similar [promotional] agreements with other sports properties and media outlets,” the Royals’ spokesman told the Star.

The Star, referencing an Ultraviolet press release (not found online at press time) also cited another of Vitae’s supposed offenses– sponsorship of a pro-life essay contest with the winners receiving Royals’ tickets.

Baseball tickets as an incentive? Insert faux shudder.

Vitae issued a statement Friday on the controversy: “If a woman in a difficult pregnancy makes the courageous decision to bring her child into the world, Vitae believes she should have meaningful support in making that decision.”

But abortion supporters cannot tolerate support for a “choice” for life in the public venue of a sports arena.

Advice & Aid Pregnancy Center with Planned Parenthood in background

ANOTHER ANTI-LIFE CAMPAIGN
The campaign to end advertisements for the pro-life Vitae Foundation follows Planned Parenthood’s unfortunately successful censoring of low-key ads for  Advice & Aid Pregnancy Center on the alternative radio station “96.5 the Buzz.” According to the Sentinel, the station had sought out Advice and Aid to become a sponsor and contracted for 328 ads. This was the ad:

“Feeling scared? Depressed? Vulnerable? Is pregnancy making you feel that life is over? Advice and Aid Pregnancy Centers will help you regardless of your struggle. You have access to a 24-hour hotline, pregnancy tests, sonograms, peer counseling and STI testing, all free of charge. Advice & Aid Pregnancy Centers is here to support you as you make your decision. Advice & Aid Pregnancy Centers — serving families facing pregnancy before, during and after with compassion.”

Only two ads were run, on May 12 & 13, before the campaign was suddenly ended.

“Before the campaign had even gotten off the ground, a local Planned Parenthood affiliate, part of the nation’s largest abortion provider, objected,” according to the Sentinel. “Its staffers took to social media asking the radio station to pull the ads.”

The radio station’s turnaround came after Planned Parenthood Great Plains posted this on its Facebook page:

“Advice and Aid, an anti-choice extremist group that operates under the guise of a health center, is now advertising on 96.5 The Buzz, KC’s alternative radio station. Let’s help The Buzz understand why Advice & Aid is dangerous for their listeners. Tell the radio station to reject these advertising dollars.”

Advice and Aid executive director Ruth Tisdale told the Sentinel that from the outset, the radio station sales reps were clearly aware of the center’s operation and the abundant medical staff. The sales reps visited the center, “knew our website inside and out,” and “were thrilled that we would advertise on the station.” However “the campaign was ultimately removed, and the contract abruptly canceled.”

The Sentinel added that Bonyen Lee-Gilmore, Planned Parenthood Great Plains Communications Director, “was interviewed by Buzz on-air personality Lazlo, host of “The Church of Lazlo,” for a podcast. The nine-minute segment was chock full of factual errors about Advice & Aid and contained the typical inaccurate list of talking points perpetrated by Planned Parenthood whenever they attempt to discredit the work of pregnancy resource centers. The only accurate fact Lee-Gilmore stated was that the two businesses are next door to each other.”

Aye, there’s the rub. Advice and Aid is right there when women drive up to Planned Parenthood in the Kansas City suburb of Overland Park.

The for-profit abortion business is desperate to squash the option for life that they see every day out their window.

In an eleventh hour action, a three member panel of the UK Supreme Court issued a temporary court-ordered reprieve in the case of a nine month old baby whose life support had been scheduled to be turned off at midnight Wednesday over his parents’ strenuous objections.

The panel will announce whether they will take the case on June 8. Until then, life support cannot be removed from Charlie Gard.

The drama centers around little Charlie, suffering from a rare mitochondrial depletion syndrome. His parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, have been prevented from removing him from the Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) in London to take him to the United States for experimental treatment.

In two lower court rulings , issued April 11 and May 25, GOSH’s control over Charlie has trumped the parent’s wishes to take their son overseas for nucleoside bypass therapy. Connie told ITV News:

“We have had our parental rights stripped away as if they don’t matter at all. Our son is basically being kept as a prisoner at the hospital.”

Chris told the interviewer, that if Charlie didn’t need “an apparatus blowing air into his lungs I could take him away,” but because he does, “we don’t have a chance and they [GOSH] get to say what happens to him.”

In its coverage of the latest development, The Sun newspaper includes a video news clip that shows an American girl, ”Sara,” who was once immobilized with the same mitochondrial syndrome but is now riding a bike after one year of the nucleoside bypass treatment.

The hospital position—thus far affirmed in court– is that Charlie is already so “ravaged” that he will not “benefit” from the new therapy and he should be allowed to die “with dignity.”

A tremendous public outcry in opposition to the hospital’s position is backed up with $1.5 million pledged on GoFundMe to pay for Charlie’s therapy and trip overseas.

If permission is granted next Thursday by the Supreme Court, another date for a full hearing will be set.

The Daily Mail reports that his parents’ plan is “to try to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg if they lose at the Supreme Court.”

The delay in court rulings, while sparing Charlie from being unplugged from the respirator, has prevented him from starting the new therapy.

The ordeal has been, in Connie’s words, “absolutely terrifying” but both parents have vowed they won’t stop fighting for their son, saying: “Where there’s life there’s hope.”

Sen. Rob Olson

The Kansas legislature is sending Gov. Sam Brownback another first-in-the-nation pro-life bill.

This morning the state Senate approved, 25-15, Senate sub SB 83, an update to the 1997 Woman’s Right to Know statute, that the House passed Friday 84-38.

“I think this is a bill that will help women make the right choice and an informed decision,” said Sen. Rob Olson (R-Olathe), who carried the bill today.

Rep. Susan Humphries

The Disclose Act was introduced this session in both chambers with numerous pro-life co-sponsors, including the three practicing physicians who are state representatives. The bill carrier in the House was Rep. Susan Humphries (R-Wichita).

The Disclose Act requires abortion businesses to provide –in an easily readable typeface –minimum professional information about each abortionist listed on clinics’ online informed consent documents.

Kansas abortion clinics cannot defend not providing basic data about the pool of practitioners they list on the informed consent documents they all make available online. State law requires this consent document as the gateway form that must be downloaded and time-stamped at least 24 hours prior to the abortion.

Currently if a woman uses the clinic’s form, she doesn’t “choose” the abortionist; she is assigned one. Nor can she evaluate if that practitioner is acceptable to her. She has no idea of the abortionist’s training, age, and professional reliability. This information stranglehold is not faced in any other elective procedure.

The Disclose Act requires these physician minimum topics:

  • Kansas residency,
  • medical degree year,
  • years employed at that abortion location,
  • whether hospital privileges are in effect,
  • malpractice coverage,
  • disciplinary actions completed by the State Board of Healing Arts (which regulates physicians).

Abortion clinics can very easily add this information in a one-time data entry to their online admission forms. Abortion clinics unjustifiably defend withholding this information–calling it harassment–the very words some abortion supporting Senators used today in debate.

Sen. Ty Masterson

SENATE DEBATE
A hostile motion by Sen. Dinah Sykes (R- Lenexa) to send the bill back to committee– to extend the disclosures to other medical practitioners– failed 16-23.

Sen. Ty Masterson (R-Andover) chastised opponents for veiling their opposition to the Disclose Act under the complaint that abortion was being treated differently. “Abortion is different because there is a third person involved in the procedure [the unborn baby].”

Sen. Steve Fitzgerald (R-Leavenworth) added, “The point is that in this procedure, the intended result is a dead human being.” He hammered at the claims from senators not to know this difference, saying this “must be explained not [due] to ignorance but to insincerity, deceit and self-delusion; and that is offensive.”

Sen. Steve Fitzgerald

Sen. Fitzgerald continued, charging that the actual intent of opponents “cloaked in ‘concern’ [about other medical procedures]” was

“to deny women important, relevant information in a convenient format at the appropriate time.”

Rebutting claims that the state Healing Arts Board makes providing disclosure to women unneeded, Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook (R-Shawnee) reminded that the Board does not act as a consumer protection agency, and “it is [our] legislative duty to protect, not point to another agency.”

Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook

Sen. Pilcher-Cook also read some excerpts from the National Abortion Federation convention which indicated the coarseness of abortionists. “The nature of abortion is ugly and it’s evil because it kills a human being,” she said.

The comment from one senator that too much time had been spent on this bill when budget issues remained, sparked this rebuttal from Sen. Gene Sullentrop (R-Wichita): “I don’t think money is more important than life…we should be making law about this and pass it.”

ABORTION VIA EMAIL
The Disclose Act is a recognition that–unlike decades ago when the Woman’s Right to Know Act became law–the great majority of abortions in Kansas are currently secured with a phone call or internet contact, not an office visit or medical referral.

Sen. Gene Suellentrop

Under state law enacted in 2013, each abortion clinic’s home page must include a live weblink to the state website for helpful “Woman’s Right to Know” information. However, proponents of the Disclose Act charge that abortion businesses have

  • disobeyed the location for that mandate or
  • printed it as to be barely-readable in tiny grey type on a tinted background.

That is the reason for requiring baseline data about abortionists be printed in black ink, 12 pt. size, on white paper.

Charlie & dad; UK court ruling today confirms hospital removal of life-support

A second court has now doomed 9-months-old Charlie Gard to die inside a London hospital.

The UK Court of Appeal ruled this morning against the plea of parents Connie Yates and Chris Gard that they be allowed to take their failing son out of a British hospital for experimental treatment in the U.S.

The decision by Justices Andrew McFarlane, Eleanor King and Philip Sales affirmed a lower court ruling of April 11 that the Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) keep Charlie on the premises and remove him from a ventilator and feeding tube.

As reported by The Guardian, the Appeal Court judges had been otherwise urged by Charlie’s lead attorney, Richard Gordon, that the case raised serious legal issues, including the possibility that Charlie might be being unlawfully detained and denied his right to liberty. Gordon argued, The Guardian reported, that,

“What is really at stake in this case is the state, on a massive scale, intruding in your right to private and family life.”

Charlie entered GOSH in October and was diagnosed as suffering from a form of mitochondrial disease that causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage. Subsequently, his parents discovered that 18 people in the United States had been treated with an oral medication of naturally occurring compounds to remedy this rare condition. Reports have not identified the doctor who initially agreed to treat Charlie, but it was noted that his parents were aware that no cure was promised.

Attorney Gordon urged that the Appeal Court, “[S]hould not interfere with the exercising of parental rights… and stand in the way of their only remaining hope.”

Over 80,000 people around the world agreed with that position and generously pledged over $1.5 million in a GoFundMe campaign (#Charliesfight) to get him out of the hospital and into the experimental therapy.

GOSH attorneys pressed the Appeal Court to agree that the parents’ proposed treatment for Charlie would result in a “condition of existence which is offering the child no benefit.”

One can only sadly wonder, alternatively, what Charlie’s “condition” would have been if GOSH had released him—months ago– for the new therapy.

His parents never imagined that bringing their baby to a hospital meant they would lose the ability to remove him.  But that is what British courts have now decreed.

Three UK Court of Appeal judges heard arguments today in the case of releasing a baby boy on life support to get experimental therapy in the United States. Justices Andrew McFarlane, Eleanor King and Philip Sales are expected to issue a ruling Thursday in a case reviewing a decision against the baby’s parents made April 11 by High Court Justice Nicholas Francis.

Imagine yourself in this drama, as the London parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard.

After their son Charlie was born healthy in August, they brought him to the Great Ormond Street Hospital [GOSH] for care in October. After establishing a diagnosis of a rare and incurable disease, GOSH then prevents them from taking their failing son overseas for a “last chance” experimental treatment!

Parents stateside have watched a related development as Scott and Sheryl Crosier led a crusade to stop DNR orders from being placed on children without parental notice and consent. Their 3-months-old son, Simon, with Trisomy 18, was denied resuscitation and died. Multiple stories of medical bias against medically fragile children were presented to the Kansas legislature, which enacted Simon’s Law in April by resounding margins.

Britain has no such hospital decision-making protection for parents.

After Charlie’s parents tracked down a potential new therapy, they launched a GoFundMe campaign –in January– to raise funds for the expenses of taking their baby overseas, with this plea:

“We are running out of precious time with our baby, he can’t have this treatment in the UK so our only hope now is to get Charlie to America.”

Over 80,000 members of the public responded generously to pledge over $1.5 million to cover Charlie’s expenses… yet GOSH will not let Charlie leave the premises!

For months, Charlie’s parents pleaded that they did not think their son was in pain; insisting that “their fight was not them ‘being selfish’ in keeping Charlie alive but about exhausting all options for potential treatment.”

CHARLIE DETERIORATES
WHILE CONFINED IN LONDON
Today, according to various UK news reports, GOSH attorneys doubled down on their position, telling the Court of Appeal that Charlie “cannot see, hear, make a noise or move,” that it is “hard for anyone to know whether he is pain,” and that further treatment would leave him in a “condition of existence.”

In essence, the hospital asserts the parents are unreasonable to pursue a treatment, cannot tell if they are causing Charlie pain and there’s no “meaningful” reason for Charlie to stay alive.

It is now five months since the funding campaign was started by Charlie’s parents, desperate to get him to the U.S. to be involved in experimental “nucleoside bypass therapy.” They acknowledged it was a move that had limited scientific basis to repair Charlie’s mitochondrial depletion syndrome, but would assuredly aid in the research to help others in the future.

It is hard not to see that Charlie Gard’s deteriorating condition is due in no small part to the stubbornness of a hospital unjustly asserting control, and “usurping the parental function” in the words of the parents’ attorney today in Court.

Followers of Charlie’s saga scratch their heads and say why has the hospital insisted –against the parents’ wishes—that Charlie be removed from life support and “die with dignity?”

The Court of Appeal will have the final word Thursday.

Votes in both chambers are imminent for the Disclose Act– an update of the 1997 Kansas “Woman’s Right to Know Act.”

The Disclose Act addresses the reality that 65% of Kansas abortions are “first-time” events, with the great majority of women knowing NOTHING about the procedure or the abortionist—much less his/her training, skill, or access to hospital facilities for a mishap.

Women are unaware of the following situations in Kansas:

  1. One clinic has had 100% turnover of their abortionist staff in 3 years; their current Kansas-resident practitioner agreed not to practice ob/gyn, under a State Board of Healing Arts disciplinary action.
  2. One clinic has recently hired a 76-year-old neurologist without ob/gyn formal training to do abortions.
  3. One clinic requires an overnight hotel visit for “2-day abortion procedures” and falsely labels the stay as “required under Kansas law.”

Kansans for Life has been told that, notwithstanding the state Board of Healing Arts’ “appreciating” our concerns for women, they will take no action for the above situations.

Yet abortion attorney Bob Eye told House and Senate committees this year that the Board insures abortionists meet rigorous standards and women therefore need not be told any professional data about them!

ABORTIONS ARRANGED ONLINE
All Kansas abortion businesses have individualized “informed consent” documents required to be downloaded 24 hours prior to the woman’s trip to the abortion clinic. The great majority of women obtaining Kansas abortions will be in the facility only on the day of the abortion, and nearly half of them are residents of another state.

The current abortion online consent documents fail to fully meet what the legislature has decreed for informed consent; instead, the clinics are:

  • using various formatting and fonts to downplay important state-required information and
  • undermining the requirement that each woman is giving consent to ONE specific practitioner –not a list of possibles.

KFL’s priority, the Disclose Act , (now renumbered as S sub SB 83) will help remedy these deficiencies; abortion business compliance will merely require a few minutes of one-time data entry. (see post here)

The Disclose Act will require

  1. the Kansas informed consent provisions be printed out in 12pt. black ink, Times Roman font, which is nationally recognized for readability, and
  2. seven “bullet points” of information be given for each listed abortionist.

Kansas “Voices for Choice” current abortion lobbying materials characterize the Disclose Act as “intended to undermine the confidence” in the abortionists whom the women can “get to know…when they meet with him/her 30 minutes before the abortion.”

Are they serious? (Pause for eye-rolling.)

Women contemplating elective abortion assume that Kansas regulators protect them from disqualified and/or untrained abortionists. Since that isn’t the case, women deserve passage of the Disclose Act.

On Thursday afternoon, the Disclose Act became part of a “conference committee report” process headed for votes in both chambers over the next few days.

ACTION ITEM: Contact your State Rep and Senator TODAY to urge passage of the Disclose Act, S sub SB 83. (Use this link if you don’t remember who your legislators are.)

Baby Charlie Gard: parents fight vs. life-support removal

Today, it was confirmed in the British press that the U.K. Court of Appeal will review on May 23, the case of Charlie Gard– a nine-months-old baby ordered off life support by the High Court last month.

Baby Charlie has been in a London hospital since October, when it was detected he had mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a rare and grave chromosomal condition that weakens his muscles. No successful cure is yet available, but he is eligible to receive an innovative treatment in the U.S. called nucleoside bypass therapy.

London’s Great Ormond Street Hospital, however, won’t allow Charlie’s parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, to remove him for the trip overseas– even after more than $1.5 million has been raised with a GoFundMe campaign, to cover medical expenses and travel.

The April 11 court decision by Justice Nicholas Francis backed the position of the hospital “bosses” (as the Brits term the hospital bureaucracy) that Charlie’s ventilator be shut off, and he be allowed to “die with dignity.”

But the modern definition of dignity is too often infected with subjective “quality of life” assessments and rationed care considerations.

The attorney for Charlie’s appeal is Charles Da Silva, and the granting of this appellate review reflects a legal analysis that the parents can possibly prevail.

Connie and Chris are desperate that their parental rights be upheld. They are not claiming the therapy will cure Charlie, but that it has shown some success and Charlie’s participation will aid the research. The parents have stated:

“If there is no improvement we will let him go. We just want to give him a chance. Charlie is still strong and stable. He is growing more beautiful by the day.”

The huge outpouring of support from the public is quite touching, including candlelight vigils, and letters storming Parliament as registered on social media at #charlie’s fight and www.charliesfight.org.

The public believes Charlie’s parents should be in charge of their son… will the Court of Appeal see it that way?