Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘NRLC’

no-physician-asst-suicideThe American Medical Association (AMA) is in the process of considering whether to forego its opposition to assisted suicide and “go neutral.”

At its summer meeting, the group voted to further study the issue, after rejecting a proposal from the Louisiana delegation that would retain the AMA’s opposition to physician-assisted suicide.

Kansans for Life is sponsoring a citizen petition to urge the AMA not to abandon its long-held opposition to physician-assisted suicide. Please sign the petition here today and circulate on social networking. It is urgent that physicians hear from thousands of concerned Americans.

National Right to Life’s NRL News Today continues to cover this issue. It featured a November commentary about the AMA retreating “into the mirage of moral neutrality,” the position articulated by Dr. Frederick White, chair of the International ethics committee with the Willis Knighton Health System in Shreveport, Louisiana. White writes:

“The central premise of physician-assisted suicide is this: A doctor should be allowed to kill certain patients. …
Despite what advocates of physician-assisted suicide claim, this debate is not about autonomy. Patients with terminal conditions already have the autonomy to direct limitation or withdrawal of life-sustaining care, to request palliative and hospice care, and to even take their own lives. Physician-assisted suicide is about a method of death, about whether that method of death should allow a conspirator, and about whether that conspirator should be a doctor.
…on the most pressing life-and-death issue of our day, doctors cannot take a pass. They must choose — either a doctor will or will not be allowed to kill certain patients. “

Recently NRL News Today posted an encouraging article, announcing that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has taken a strong position that

a psychiatrist should not prescribe or administer any intervention to a non-terminally ill person for the purpose of causing death.

This implies that it is not ethical for a psychiatrist to help a non-terminally ill person to commit suicide, either by providing the means or by direct lethal injection, as is being currently practiced in The Netherlands and Belgium.

Although this binds only APA members, the APA is one of the world’s most influential professional bodies. The World Psychiatric Association (WPA) is considering a similar statement.suicide-control

FALSE ASSURANCE of CONTROL
Prolific author and euthanasia opponent, Wesley J. Smith, debunks the popular idea that medicalized killing will be “a last resort” reserved for the terminally ill, “to be deployed only in the context of a long-term relationship with a caring doctor and, even then, strictly when there is no other way to alleviate suffering.”

Smith reminds that no law requires objective proof of unalleviable pain and suffering before death can be administered.  So-called “protective guidelines,” are false assurances, because as it works out in countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands, “doctor-facilitated suicide is available to the dying, the disabled, the elderly, the mentally ill—and even some married couples who choose death over the prospect of future widowhood.

Read more about physician-assisted suicide from NRL News Today here.

TAKE ACTION: A position of “neutrality” from the AMA on physician-assisted suicide is unacceptable cowardice. Sign the KFL petition to the AMA today!

Read Full Post »

The Electoral Colletrump-v-hillary-rip-baby-9th-monthge votes were officially cast today, making Donald Trump and running mate, Mike Pence, the next U.S. President and VP by a tally of 304-228. All six GOP Kansas electors voted for Trump/Pence. The results will be finalized Jan. 6, 2017, with the inauguration two weeks later.

For the first time ever, the 2016 election was clearly a referendum on abortion. Political parties and their presidential candidates publicly staked out totally opposite positions–unlike past campaigns in which most candidates tried to minimize positions on controversial issues.

Hillary Clinton made abortion-on-demand a cornerstone issue of her 2016 campaign: abortion available at any time up until delivery, and at taxpayer’s expense by eliminating the Hyde amendment. And despite the national furor over the sale of aborted baby parts to the highest bidder, Clinton wanted to expand taxpayer funding to America’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.

The nation heard an authentic horror in Trump’s words during the Oct. 20, 2016 national presidential debate:

Well I think it is terrible. If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month you can take [the] baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby. Now, you can say that that is okay and Hillary can say that that is okay, but it’s not okay with me. Because based on what she is saying and based on where she’s going and where she’s been, you can take [the] baby and rip the baby out of the womb. In the ninth month. On the final day. And that’s not acceptable.

The remaining commentary below comes from National Right to Life Committee Executive Director, David O’Steen, featured in the December edition of NRL News Today:

“Donald Trump gave 100% pro-life answers to National Right to Life’s questions, met with pro-life leaders of National Right to Life and made campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, a strong, well known pro-life advocate, a public face of his campaign. At the same time Hillary Clinton made seemingly countless appearances at Planned Parenthood events pledging over and over her fealty to their abortion agenda.

In the their third debate President–elect Trump made what were perhaps the strongest pro-life statements ever made by a candidate to a national audience and called out Hillary Clinton on her past Senate vote in favor of partial–birth abortion. Clinton countered by continuing to defend her support for legal partial birth abortion, undoubtedly thinking that was a winning ticket. How wrong she was.

POLLS: 13% ADVANTAGE TO PRO-LIFE POSITION
A national poll of voters taken on election day, November 8, by the polling company Inc./Woman Trend found that essentially half of all voters (49%) said that abortion affected their vote. How did they vote – 31% said they voted for candidates who opposed abortion while only 18% said they voted for candidates who favored abortion – a 13% advantage for the pro-life side. When you think how close the vote was in Pennsylvania and other states which determined the election, it is clear that abortion made a clear difference in the election.baby-vote-prolife

The poll results also clearly reflected the heavy involvement of National Right to Life and its political action committees, the National Right to Life PAC and the National Right to Life Victory Fund. Fully 29% of voters recalled hearing, seeing or receiving information from National Right to Life and 17% recalled hearing, seeing or receiving information from a state right to life group such as an NRLC affiliate.

National Right to Life and its political action committees mailed 3.3 million pieces of literature, made 5 million phone calls, sent 3 million e-mails and reached 9.2 million through social media, many of whom undoubtedly shared, reposted and retweeted National Right to Life’s information.

All in all National Right to Life’s PACs were actively involved in 58 federal campaigns, winning 48 (83%) of them.

Yes, there was a referendum on abortion on November 8. Hillary Clinton lost and Donald Trump won – but unborn children won also.”

Read Full Post »

Gov. Brownback signs historic Act

Gov. Brownback signs ban
on dismemberment abortion

The National Pro-Life Religious Council will honor Kansans and Gov. Sam Brownback on Jan. 22 with the National Pro-Life Recognition Award for the enactment of the “Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act.”

The presentation is part of the annual events at the Washington, D.C. March for Life, marking the tragic 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe v Wade ruling that legalized abortion and the destruction of an estimated 58 million unborn children.

Fr. Frank Pavone, head of Priests for Life and president of the NPR Council, has announced that Gov. Brownback will be a guest of honor at the prayer gathering at Constitution Hall, 1776 D Street NW, in Washington, D.C., opening with a Catholic Mass at 7:30 a.m., and followed by an interdenominational service from 8:30 to 10:30 a.m. The event is free and open to the public, with no tickets required.

Members of the NPR Council Host committee include representatives from the National Right to Life Committee, Family Research Council, Alliance Defending Freedom, Bott Radio Network, and other pro-life groups.

Gov. Brownback released this statement:

“As Governor of Kansas I have signed 15 Right to Life bills reaffirming our commitment that life at all stages is sacred and valuable. I appreciate the efforts of the National Pro-life Religious Council, Priests for Life and their allied organizations in recognizing the people of Kansas and their elected officials at the National Prayer Service. Kansas has enacted legislation protecting unborn children from dismemberment abortions, and I encourage other states to do the same. I ask you, therefore, to join me at this prayer service, so that the action we have taken in Kansas can be an encouragement to similar efforts throughout this great land.”

2015 Rally for Life 2015 Rally for Life urges ban on dismemberment abortion bans

2015 Rally for Life in Topeka

The historic “Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act”  prohibits a gruesome method in which the abortionist tears apart a living, well-formed, unborn child– piece by piece –with sharp metal clamps and scissors.

The draft legislation for the “Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act” was developed by Kansans for Life with the National Right to Life Committee; Sen. Garrett Love (R-Montezuma) was lead sponsor. Public support for the bill was overwhelming and ceremonial bill signings by Gov. Brownback were held in four Kansas cities.

  • The Act is currently blocked in Kansas by a temporary injunction, awaiting a ruling from the State Court of Appeals.
  • Oklahoma passed the Act and it is under injunction in federal court.
  • The Act is being considered in several other state legislatures and has been filed in the U.S.House of Representatives.

The “Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act” was crafted to be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, with the same reasoning they cited for upholding a ban on partial-birth method abortions in 2007 (emphasis added):

“[W]hen it has a rational basis to act, and it does not impose an undue burden, the State may use its regulatory power to bar certain procedures and substitute others, all in furtherance of its legitimate interests in regulating the medical profession in order to promote respect for life, including life of the unborn.” [Gonzales v Carhart, 550 U.S. at 158]

Read Full Post »

KFL senior lobbyist Jeanne Gawdun congratulates Rep. Brunk, Hutchins & Rubin

KFL senior lobbyist Jeanne Gawdun congratulates Reps. Brunk, Hutchins & Rubin after SB 95 passage

Today by a vote of  98 -26, the Kansas House passed landmark pro-life legislation, Senate Bill 95,”The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act.”

KFL Executive Director, Mary Kay Culp, thanked legislators for their diligence in tackling the issue and enacting a sound law crafted to withstand constitutional scrutiny that will stop a horrific procedure.

After the introduction of the bill in January by lead sponsor, Sen. Garrett Love (R-Montezuma), and 24 Senate co-sponsors, the bill generated immediate grass-roots support and passed the Kansas Senate, 31-9. SB 95 now heads to Gov. Sam Brownback, who has promised his signature.

SB 95 bans a particularly gruesome abortion method in which a living unborn child in her mother’s womb is ripped apart by an abortionist using sharp metal tools. In the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, the unborn child, “dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb.”[Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 958-959]

Model language for SB 95 was provided by the National Right to Life Committee, which made this bill its top state legislative priority. (see their press release here)

SB 95 was carried on the House floor by seasoned pro-lifer, Rep. Steve Brunk (R-Wichita), chair of the Federal & State Affairs committee which held the hearing on the measure. He was assisted on legal questions by another pro-life leader, Rep. John Rubin (R-Shawnee), chair of the Corrections & Juvenile Justice committee.

Pro-life Rep. Becky Hutchins (R-Holton) spoke up for the victim of dismemberment abortion, the “living” unborn child. Then she talked about the “three D’s” associated with such abortions, (depravity, devaluation, and desensitization) as admitted by former abortionist George Flesh:

“Tearing a developed fetus apart, limb by limb, is an act of depravity that society should not permit. We cannot afford such a devaluation of human life, nor the desensitization of medical personnel it requires.”

Once again, opponents of SB 95 talked about anything other than the contents of the bill, mostly complaining that more money should be spent on pregnancy prevention.

Perennial abortion supporter, Rep. Barb Bollier (R-Mission Hills), offered a poorly-worded and unneeded medical exception for “ruptured membranes before 24 weeks.” SB 95 already includes exceptions for the life-of–the-mother and substantial and irreversible physical emergencies.

BACKGROUND
In the 42 years since Roe v. Wade was handed down, the Supreme Court has consistently asserted that States have compelling interests in regulating abortion to preserve the integrity of the medical profession and show respect for the unborn child.

“States also have an interest in forbidding medical procedures which, in the State’s reasonable determination, might cause the medical profession or society as a whole to become insensitive, even disdainful, to life, including life in the human fetus.” [Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 961]

Although the Court (in the 2000 Stenberg v Carhart ruling) did not uphold Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortions, in 2007 it did uphold the federal ban on partial-birth abortions in Gonzales v. Carhart. In both Stenberg and Gonzales, the justices closely examined the gruesome methods of both partial-birth and D&E/ dismemberment abortions.

“Those who oppose abortion would agree, indeed would insist, that both procedures [partial-birth and D&E] are subject to the most severe moral condemnation, condemnation reserved for the most repulsive human conduct” [Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 963

In Stenberg Justice John Paul Stevens, an abortion supporter, compared partial-birth abortion to dismemberment abortion—not to oppose either but to make the case that if the state had an interest in preventing one, it also did in preventing the other. He wrote “that the State furthers any legitimate interest by banning one but not the other, is simply irrational.” [Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 946-947]

Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, also an abortion supporter, said in Gonzales that both methods “could equally be characterized as ‘brutal,’involving as it does ‘tear[ing] [a fetus] apart’ and ‘rip[ping] off’ its limbs.” [Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 181, 182]

The simple truth is D&E dismemberment abortions are as brutal as the partial-birth abortion method, which is now illegal in the United States.

Read Full Post »

stop dismembering posterGreat news from Kansas. Friday morning the Senate approved SB 95 the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, by a vote of 31-9.

Crafted by the National Right to Life Committee to withstand Constitutional scrutiny, SB 95 heads to a very receptive House, where it is expected to pass easily, and then on to pro-life Gov. Sam Brownback, who promised to sign this bill.

Lead sponsor Sen. Garrett Love (R-Montezuma) began yesterday’s formal discussion on the Senate floor by recounting how members of the Senate Health committee heard an ex-abortionist describe this method

“of tearing the arms, legs, and other body parts off until a baby dies. Hearing the description made myself and many other members of the committee feel sick [especially] when learning nearly 600 such abortions occur each year in Kansas.”

Sen. Love, the ‘youngest-ever-elected’ to the Kansas Senate, discussed his new baby daughter and coming to love her more through her ultrasound imaging at 12 and 19 weeks gestation, the time frame when most dismemberment abortions occur. He said,

“people in my generation are outraged by this procedure; they see the sonograms of their friends, family and their own babies on Facebook and realize that in those pictures are little, defenseless babies. They need us to defend them because they cannot defend themselves…This is a truly barbaric practice we must end in Kansas.”

Unfortunately, none of the eight Democrat Senators supported the bill and only two strident abortion supporters, Marci Francisco (D-Lawrence) and David Haley (D-Kansas City) chose to speak yesterday. Unsurprisingly, neither discussed the dismemberment method per se.

Sen. Francisco took pains not to use the word dismemberment and referred to ‘the procedure’ as being very safe for women. She offered one amendment that would gut the entire bill replacing it with new language eliminating many pro-life provisions enacted over the past five years. Her amendment was strongly rejected.

Sen. Haley riled up his peers by saying SB 95

  • would cost too much to defend,
  • was purely a political ploy using inflammatory terms of ‘unborn child’ and ‘protection,’ and ‘dismemberment,’
  • was advanced by people who are anti-science,
  • was improperly being debated by male Senators, who have no right to vote on this issue since they can’t ever get pregnant.

He finished by calling himself a  defender of mothers, grandmothers, sisters, daughters who should not be restricted from access to ‘healthcare’ –i.e. abortions.

Of course these are all side issues, which were easily and quickly rebutted. Thus, it was clearly demonstrated in the Kansas Senate, that the pro-abortion side has no substantive defense for the barbaric abortion procedure of dismembering living, tiny unborn babies with sharp metal tools.

Read Full Post »

KFL press conferees Jean Gawdun, bill sponsor Sen. Garrett Love and KFL counsel, Jessica Basgall

“Dismemberment ban” introduction featured (L-R) KFL senior lobbyist, Jeanne Gawdun;  bill sponsor, Sen. Garrett Love; and KFL counsel, Jessica Basgall.

Kansans for Life held a press conference Wednesday morning to introduce “The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act.” See TV coverage,  here and here.

The public is largely unaware that the standard method for second-trimester abortions involves the brutal limb-by-limb dismemberment of living unborn children.

According to the KDHE (Kansas Department of Health & Environment) in 2013, 578 such abortions were performed using what is termed the “D & E” abortion (Dilation and extraction) method. (see Table 42, pg 101, here)

D & E “remains the most prevalent and cost-effective method of second-trimester pregnancy termination in the USA,” according to the National Abortion Federation Abortion Training Textbook. A medical illustration of a D&E dismemberment abortion is available here.

Kansans will recoil when they actually comprehend this horrific abortion method, as they did when they learned about the gruesome Partial-Birth Abortion method. Bill sponsor, Senate Majority Whip, Garrett Love (R-Montezuma) said,

“In visiting with my constituents, many have been stunned that this practice (dismemberment) is going on in Kansas and have demanded that it be stopped. I am proud to sponsor this ground-breaking legislation,”

The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act was crafted by the National Right to Life Committee, and defines dismemberment as:

“extracting him or her one piece at a time from the uterus through use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments that, through the convergence of two rigid levers, slice, crush, and /or grasp a portion of the unborn child’s body to cut or rip it off. This definition does not include an abortion which uses suction to dismember the body of the developing unborn child by sucking fetal parts into a collection container.”

LITIGATION STRATEGY
Dismemberment abortion is one of six recognized abortion methods used after the first trimester.

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court Gonzales v Carhart ruling upheld a federal ban on the gruesome Partial Birth method of abortion– which, arguably, may even be less barbaric than dismemberment abortion— because other methods were available.

The Court said that states had the right to ban a method of abortion in order to preserve the integrity of the medical profession and express profound respect for the developing unborn child. In that ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy (considered the ‘swing’ abortion vote on the Court) described the dismemberment method:

“The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn apart limb by limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off. The process of dismembering the fetus continues until it has been completely removed. A doctor may make 10 to 15 passes with the forceps to evacuate the fetus in its entirety…”

This new legislation includes a strict emergency exception, criminal and civil penalties, and privacy protection for court proceedings. It will be introduced in the Kansas Senate next week.

Since  2011, Kansas has barred abortion after 22 weeks gestation (20 weeks post-fertilization) due to the research-confirmed pain-capability of the unborn child. In 1998, Kansas barred Partial Birth Abortions.

Read Full Post »

U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)

U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Kansas’ U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts has taken a leadership role in battling government restrictions on health care and to that end, on Tuesday filed the “Repeal Rationing in Support of Life Act,” see video here.

This is the third in a series of bills, part of a comprehensive effort by Sen. Roberts, to prevent the federal government from limiting access to life-saving medical care for patients at all stages of life.

“Obamacare has made many Americans fearful that cost-cutting and rationing of care will limit their options for health care at a time when they are vulnerable–when they are sick or battling a life threatening condition,” Roberts said. “By introducing this bill, we are fighting against hidden barriers to treatment and life-saving medicine.”

Roberts’ bill targets four rationing provisions of Obamacare for repeal:

1) the “excess benefit” tax coming into effect in 2018, which unfairly limits employee plans from keeping pace with medical inflation;
2) the current exclusion of adequate health insurance plans from the exchanges;
3) limits now curtailing senior citizens’ ability to add their own money in addition to Medicare payment for health insurance including Medicare Advantage; and
4) federal limits on the care doctors are allowed to give their patients.

Roberts’ legislation (see bill details here) is endorsed by the National Right to Life Committee, which has delineated rationing dangers in Obamacare in this NRLC report and in a recent Q & A article here.

Mary Kay Culp, executive director of Kansans for Life, stated, “Obamacare authorizes Washington bureaucrats to create one uniform, national standard of care that is designed to limit what private citizens are allowed to spend to save their own lives. We commend Senator Roberts for his bill and his consistent leadership to end Obamacare’s rationing.”

The bill is cosponsored by Senators Jerry Moran (R-KS), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.).

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »