RFFM.ORG

Breast Cancer's Link to Abortion: The Daily Iowan Implies Catholic Doctors Can't Do Science

EDITOR'S NOTE:  Karen Malec is the President of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer.  Malec is one of the world's leading authorities on the relationship between abortion and breast cancer.  The following essay is a perfect illustration of how mainstream media bias has tried to silence the public debate over this issue.

 

Karen Malec, President, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer *

 

On two occasions early in November, The Daily Iowan's opinion editor, Shawn Gude, invited a reader by the name of Rebecca Curtis to send him a 600-word rebuttal in response to a guest opinion written by University of Iowa law students, Amber Fricke and Amy Hirst, on October 27, 2009 that incorrectly stated that abortion does not increase breast cancer risk. [1] 

 

Curtis sent The Daily Iowan a rebuttal, but Gude rejected it on November 5 and invited her to send a revised rebuttal. She quickly responded by sending him a revised rebuttal, but on November 9, he rejected that too. Gude explained to Curtis, "While I appreciate your submission, I remain skeptical of some of your sources." 

 

Gude objected that Curtis had cited research published in The Linacre Quarterly, a publication of the Catholic Medical Association, and the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, a publication of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, even though both publications are peer-reviewed medical journals and the authors of the research papers in question are esteemed, international experts on the abortion-breast cancer link. [8,9] (The term "peer-reviewed" means that the scientific papers have been evaluated by an impartial panel of experts who recommend the papers for publication or rejection.) 

 

It appears that Gude and other editors had held Curtis' commentary to a higher standard of scrutiny than the commentary by Fricke and Hirst. The editors permitted Fricke and Hirst to cite the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, as well as two studies that have been proven in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons to be fatally flawed. [2,3,4,5] Fricke and Hirst, who are members of the euphemistically named University of Iowa Law Students for Reproductive Justice, also cited the American Cancer Society's web page, "Is Abortion Linked to Breast Cancer?" [6]

 

Had the editors at the paper conducted a 5-minute search on PubMed, they would have learned that one of Fricke and Hirst's citations, a study named Melbye et al. 1997, actually reported a statistically significant 89% risk increase for women who have abortions after 18 weeks gestation, although researchers found no overall increase in risk. [2] (The American Cancer Society insults women's intelligence by using this study to deny an abortion-breast cancer link.)

Furthermore, Melbye's team found a dose effect of 3% per week of gestation until the abortion takes place, thereby fulfilling one of the criteria needed for establishing a cause-effect relationship. In other words, the longer a pregnant woman is exposed to the cancer-causing effects of an elevated estrogen level before her abortion takes place, the greater her breast cancer risk is (provided the abortion occurs before 32 weeks gestation). The breasts grow during a normal pregnancy because estrogen stimulates the mother's cancer-susceptible lobules to multiply. The longer she is pregnant before her abortion takes place, the more places she grows for cancers to start. 

Breast cancer risk plunges at 32 weeks and continues to plunge for each week thereafter until delivery at 40 weeks, as the fetus produces hormones that mature an increasing number of the mother's breast lobules into permanently cancer-resistant lobules. [7,8] By 40 weeks, 85% of the lobules are permanently cancer-resistant. Then, the mother is left with fewer places in her breasts for cancers to start. (That explains why full term pregnancy is protective against breast cancer.)

If The Daily Iowan's editors had conducted a PubMed search, they would have discovered a 1999 study by Melbye's team reporting that premature birth before 32 weeks gestation more than doubles breast cancer risk (a finding that supports an independent link between abortion and breast cancer). [7] Early premature birth, like abortion, is a short pregnancy exposing the mother's cancer-susceptible breast lobules to virtually the same pregnancy hormones, which result in the same structural changes and leave her with more places for breast cancers to start. 

Instead of considering the scientific evidence on how the breasts develop and function that had been presented in the journal, The Linacre Quarterly, Gude and his colleagues decided to shoot its messengers. [8]  Gude wrote to Curtis that he was "uneasy" about the use of a source from The Linacre Quarterly, which "exists to uphold the principles of the Catholic faith and morality as related to the science and practice of medicine."

What was Gude implying? That Catholic doctors can't do science? That they bend science to fit their religious beliefs? The implication is that Catholic doctors are incapable of objectivity when it comes to scientific research on abortion, unlike doctors of other faiths and atheists and agnostics (none of whom could possibly be biased in favor of abortion). If Gude had dared to imply that a Jewish medical journal was not credible because it exists to uphold the Jewish faith in the science and practice of medicine, consider the outrage that would follow.

Bias is not exclusively a one-way street that occurs only in the pro-life camp, but when bias goes the opposite way, in the direction of the pro-abortion camp, abortion enthusiasts in the media are indifferent, even if that bias endangers women's lives. For example, although cancer experts universally consider childbearing to be protective against breast cancer and an independent link between abortion and breast cancer has been studied for 53 years, cancer fundraising groups, like Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Breast Cancer Action and the National Breast Cancer Coalition, have included radicals among their leaders who had previously been associated with Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America and the American Civil Liberties Union. Why would it be in their interest to educate women about the three ways that abortion raises breast cancer risk?

 

Dr. Leslie Bernstein's bias in favor of abortion is overt, but no one would ever dream of insulting her by associating her religious faith (or lack of faith) with the way she has conducted herself as a scientist. Bernstein was a leader/moderator at the U.S. National Cancer Institute's phony workshop on the abortion-breast cancer link in 2003. After that workshop, she told CancerPage.com why she doesn't want women to know that abortion raises breast cancer risk. Note that she acknowledged that the younger a woman is when she has her first birth, the lower her breast cancer risk is. (It can't be denied that abortion is used to delay first full term pregnancies.) Bernstein said:

"The biggest bang for the buck is the first birth, and the younger you are, the better off you are. I would never be a proponent of going around and telling them that having babies is the way to reduce your risk.... I don't want the issue relating to induced abortion to breast cancer risk to be part of the mix of the discussion of induced abortion, its legality, its continued availability." [10]

Imagine the howls among abortion enthusiasts in the media if a reverse scenario had taken place. Pretend that Bernstein had been anti-abortion and had said she didn't want women to know there were health benefits associated with having an abortion (not that there really are health benefits). There would be no end to the doleful wailing among those members of the press, and the U.S. National Cancer Institute would resemble the storming of the Bastille during the French Revolution in 1789.

After hearing that The Daily Iowan's opinion editor had objected to a citation from The Linacre Quarterly, one physician declared that if the biological facts presented in that journal had been published on a bathroom wall, on parchment, on toilet paper or in the National Enquirer, they would still remain biological facts. If The Daily Iowan's editors had bothered to review the secondary references listed at the end of the article in The Linacre Quarterly, they would have found studies published in medical journals with politically correct names, such as the New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, British Journal of Cancer, and Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. [8]

Gude also objected that Curtis used the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons as a source. [9] He told Curtis that the Journal is "a political non-profit" (a description that could be applied to the American Medical Association); and he criticized the Journal for publishing articles that challenged scientific hypotheses concerning global warming and HIV/AIDS. He claimed, 

"It has also published reports claiming 'increases in (atmospheric carbon dioxide) during the 20th and 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate' and that HIV doesn't cause AIDS." 

Gude said both the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organization deny the abortion-breast cancer link. If Gude had been an opinion editor during the 1930's, would he have also rejected a commentary discussing Einstein's theory of relativity because 100 scientists had written essays disparaging it? 

Jane Orient, MD, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, commented on Gude's arguments. She wrote:

"How can one respond to this kind of attack? It is not a good faith assessment. But one might say:
 
"The validity of a scientific paper should be assessed by reading it, not by skimming the table of contents of the journal that published it.
 
"The Daily Iowan assumes the truth of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, which is based solely on UN computer models, the predictions of which are refuted by actual observations. Around 32,000 American scientists are on the record as agreeing with the statement that The Daily Iowan quotes. 
 
"The Daily Iowan assumes the truth of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis; the Journal has published a couple of articles pointing to difficulties with it. All scientific hypotheses are subject to efforts to disprove them; that is the nature of science.
 
"Apparently, the fact that WHO (World Health Organization), a heavily politicized international agency, questioned the abortion-breast cancer link tells The Daily Iowan it must be not worth looking at.
 
"This is apparently the reasoning process used by The Daily Iowan:
 
"A peer-reviewed scientific journal's publication of articles criticizing politically correct theories means everything in the Journal is worthless.
 
"A political agency's criticism of a politically incorrect hypothesis about an ABC (abortion-breast cancer) link means that all the evidence for an ABC link is worthless.
 
"What conclusions can one reach about the critical thinking skills, the scientific understanding, or the journalistic standards of The Daily Iowan?"

Breast cancer is an extremely common disease, and abortion is a common, elective procedure. Under these circumstances, what possible right do journalists have to commit journalistic malpractice by ignoring the opinion of eight medical organizations that acknowledge that abortion raises breast cancer risk, independently of the recognized breast cancer risk of abortion - the loss of the protective effect of childbearing? 

Consequently, the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is presenting the Daily Iowan's editors with two easy challenges that will help them cast light on the cancer fundraising industry's truthfulness. 

First, no expert has ever challenged or even attempted to refute the biological basis for the link presented in The Linacre Quarterly or anywhere else, for that matter. If the editors have a sincere desire to protect women's health, then why not ask the American Cancer Society, the U.S. National Cancer Institute and Susan G. Komen for the Cure to review Dr. Angela Lanfranchi's paper in The Linacre Quarterly and identify any errors? Why not challenge them to refute the biological reasons for the abortion-breast cancer link? Cancer groups won't do it because Lanfranchi's presentation is physiologically correct.

Second, since medical texts acknowledge that childlessness, delayed first full term pregnancy and small family size raise breast cancer risk, the editors should ask the cancer fundraising industry two simple questions with two obvious answers. If a woman aborts all of her pregnancies, will she be childless?  Also, who has the greater breast cancer risk - the 15-year-old who has an abortion or the one who has a full term pregnancy? The second question has to do with the recognized breast cancer risk of abortion - the loss of the protective effect of childbearing.

Even Dr. Lynn Rosenberg (Boston Medical School), an expert witness for Florida abortion providers in 1999 was forced to set aside the cancer establishment's intellectual dishonesty when she testified under oath as an expert witness for the Center for Reproductive Rights in a lawsuit challenging Florida's parental notification law. Preferring not to perjure herself by pretending that abortion that abortion does not cause women to delay their first full term pregnancies, she said she agreed with this statement:

"A woman who finds herself pregnant at age 15 will have a higher breast cancer risk if she chooses to abort that pregnancy than if she carries the pregnancy to term, correct?" [11]

Breast cancer increases with age at first full term pregnancy. A delayed first full term pregnancy lengthens the period between puberty and first full term pregnancy (the "susceptibility window") when nearly all of the breast lobules are immature and cancer-susceptible and exposed to the cancer-causing effects of estrogen increases during monthly menstrual cycles, resulting in an accumulation of the effects of cancer-causing substances.

 

Since the loss of the protective effect of childbearing is considered settled science, most studies on the abortion-breast cancer link do not compare the effect of having an abortion with the effect of having a full term pregnancy. Rather, most studies compare the effect of having an abortion with the effect of not having had that pregnancy (thereby addressing the question of an independent link - whether abortion further raises risk by leaving the breasts with more places for cancers to start).  

 

Certainly, it would be bad social policy to encourage unmarried teens and young women to have babies. However, Professor Joel Brind from Baruch College, City University of New York, has rightly argued that the already-pregnant woman has only two realistic choices. Either she aborts, or she has a baby. She doesn't have the choice of never having had that pregnancy. Her doctor is ethically and legally obligated to obtain informed consent from her before performing an abortion. That means telling her that experts agree if she chooses an abortion, her risk of developing breast cancer will be greater than it will be if she chooses to have a baby(because she is delaying her first full term pregnancy). The woman may be able to sue her doctor for medical malpractice if he fails to provide her with this minimal information (as five women have successfully sued their doctors who failed to warn them about the risks of breast cancer and emotional harm). [12]

 

It takes a special kind of cruelty to cover up a risk that has caused 1.5 million Americans to develop breast cancer and 300,000 deaths since 1973 (based on 50 million abortions, a 30% increased risk of breast cancer for women with abortions, and a 10% lifetime risk for the average American woman without abortion). 

 

The American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and other cancer groups could have done a great deal of good by telling women the truth about the abortion-breast cancer link. Instead, they use studies that have been proven in medical journals to be significantly flawed (even fraudulent) to make their argument that abortion does not raise breast cancer risk. [13-22] 

 

They didn't tell women the truth about the risks of using the pill and combined hormone replacement therapy, although the data were available in the 1980s. Now they're not telling women the truth about the abortion-breast cancer link. Biased members of the media are their enablers.

 

References:

1. "Recent DI advertising supplement strikingly inaccurate," By Amber Fricke and Amy Hirst, The Daily Iowan, October 27, 2009. Available at: http://www.dailyiowan.com/2009/10/27/Opinions/13910.html?dsq=21109498#disqus_thread

2. Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Olson JH, Frisch M, Westergaard T, Helweg-Larsen K, Andersen PK. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997;336:81-85.

3. Michels K, Xue Fei, Colditz G., Willett W. Induced and Spontaneous Abortion and Incidence of Breast Cancer Among Young Women. Arch Int Med 2007;167:814-820.

4. Brind J, Chinchilli VM. Letter. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997;336:1834-1835.

5. Brind J.  Induced abortion and breast cancer: A critical analysis of the report of the Harvard Nurses Study II. J Am Phys Surg 2007;12(2)38-39. Available at:  http://www.jpands.org/vol12no2/brind.pdf

6. "Is abortion linked to breast cancer?" American Cancer Society web page. Visited November 24, 2009. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp?sitearea= .

7. Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Andersen A-M N, Westergaard T, Andersen PK. Preterm delivery and risk of breast cancer. Bri J Cancer 1999;80:609-13.

8. Lanfranchi, A. Normal breast physiology: The reasons hormonal contraceptives and induced abortion increase breast cancer risk. The Linacre Quarterly 2009;76:236-249. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/LQ_76_3_2_Lanfranchi.pdf

9. Brind J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: A critical review of recent studies based on prospective data. J Am Phys Surg Vol. 10, No. 4 (Winter 2005) 105-110. Available at: http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf

10. Lowe RM, NCI scientific panel concludes abortion has no impact on breast cancer risk. CancerPage.com, March 3, 2003.  Available at:

http://www.cancerpage.com/news/article.asp?id=5601   Accessed November 18, 2009.

11. Rosenberg (1999) NW FL Women's Health vs. State of FL, FL Circuit Ct., 2nd circ., videotape deposition of 11/18/99, pp. 77-78. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/rosenberg's_testimony.htm

12. See the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer's Legal Issues web page at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/Your_Rights.htm

13. Brind J. Breast cancer in relation to abortion: results from the EPIC study. Int J Cancer. 2008 Feb 15;122(4):960-1.

14. Brind J. California Teachers Study report on incomplete pregnancy is flawed. Contraception 2009;Mar;79(3):240.

15. Brind J. The abortion-breast cancer connection. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly Summer 2005; p. 303-329. Available at: <http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com/Brind_NCBQ.PDF>.

16. Lanfranchi A. The abortion-breast cancer link revisited. Ethics and Medics (November 2004) Vol. 29, No. 11, p. 1-4.  Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/news/041120/index.htm

17. Furton E. Editorial. The corruption of science by ideology. Ethics and Medics (Dec. 2004) Vol. 29, No. 11, p. 1-2.  Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/E+MDec2004-EFurtonarticle.PDF

18. Schlafly A. Legal implications of a link between abortion and breast cancer. J Am Phys Surgeons 2005;10:11-14. Available at: http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf

19. Lanfranchi A. The science, studies and sociology of the abortion-breast cancer link. Research Bulletin 2005;18:1-8. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/June2005.pdf

20. Lanfranchi A. The breast physiology and the epidemiology of the abortion breast cancer link. Imago Hominis 2005;12(3): 228-236. http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/Lanfranchi060201.pdf

21. Brind J. Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk: A Critical Analysis of the Report of the Harvard Nurses Study II. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons(Summer 2007) Vol. 12, No. 2, p. 38-39.  Available at: http://www.jpands.org/vol12no2/brind.pdf

22. Lanfranchi, A. The federal government and academic texts as barriers to informed consent. J Am Phys Surg (Spring 2008).  Available at: http://www.jpands.org/vol13no1/lanfranchi.pdf.

* Karen Malec, President
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
P.O. Box 957133, Hoffman Estates, IL 60195
www.AbortionBreastCancer.com
response@abortionbreastcancer.com
1-877-803-0102 (toll free)

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org 

 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

RFFM.org Offers Forum To All Illinois Pro-Family Statewide Candidates

From RFFM.org's Executive Director, Dan Zanoza:  RFFM.org will post an op-ed submission from all Illinois pro-family statewide candidates.  An op-ed posted on RFFM.org from a particular candidate is not an indication of an RFFM.org endorsement. 

 

Op-ed submissions from candidates must meet the following criteria. 

 

Those seeking elected office in Illinois must support pro-family issues, including support for the rights of the innocent unborn, support of Second Amendment rights and support of traditional marriage.  

 

Of course, there are other pro-family issues which I did not specifically address here.  For example, the intrusion into our lives by big government and high taxation are not pro-family issues, per se.  However, high taxation has negatively impacted families.  In the past, one wage earner per household was sufficient to support a family.  Ever-expanding government and higher state and federal taxes have often forced both parents to seek employment.  This has led, in many ways, to the cultural devolution of our society.  In the past, when children came home from school, a parent was present.  Today young people are often left to their own devices, including finding entertainment on the Internet, or by watching television or by playing computer games.  FBI statistics indicate most crimes committed by children take place between the end of school hours and when parents return home from work.  But being a fiscal conservative and a social liberal will disqualify any individuals seeking elected office from having their op-ed submission considered for posting on RFFM.org.

 

RFFM.org's primary mission is to share information regarding pro-family issues.  Indeed, RFFM.org's motto is:  "In a democratic republic, good government is dependent upon an informed citizenry."

 

Some have misinterpreted op-ed postings on RFFM.org--from those seeking elected office--as an endorsement from RFFM.org of that individual.  This is an inaccurate assumption. 

 

Pro-family political candidates are encouraged to submit op-eds regarding their candidacies with emphasis on issues related to that individual's stand on the subjects which I mentioned above.

 

Those who support abortion, homosexual "marriage" or gambling need not apply. 

 

NOTE:  Before the Republican primary, RFFM.org will list candidates who submitted an op-ed posting and those who did not.  RFFM.org will also provide information regarding those seeking elected office who submitted an op-ed which was rejected or disqualified. 

 

All op-ed submissions from those seeking elected office should be written in the first person and sent to Dan@rffm.org for consideration.

 

**********

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org.

 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Canadian Researcher: Prof. Levitt's New Book, Superfreakenomics, Ignores Abortion Risks

Brent Rooney:  Superfreakenomics Co-Author Should Leave Medical Matters Alone

Steven D. Levitt's LAUGH-IN  /  Freakonomics Fried

by Brent Rooney (MSc) *

 

On Oct. 2009, Univ. of Chicago Prof. Steven D. Levitt debuted

Superfreakonomics as a sequel to his best-selling book Freakonomics

(2005).  Perhaps Levitt is correct about Global Cooling, in his 2009

book, but nothing Levitt writes about medical matters can be believed.

 

If a young Milton Friedman (PhD, Nobel Prize winner) had opined

that “strong increased consumer demand for IPODs or Ivory Soap leads

to DECREASED prices”, the loud guffaws would have shattered ears

and the business press would have lectured the good professor from the

same university as economics professor Steven D. Levitt (Univ. of Chicago). 

In 2001 Steven D. Levitt & co-author John Donohue were not pulling an

April fool's joke when the pair declared:

   abortion “improves infant outcomes by reducing the number of low

   birthweight babies and neonatal mortality”  (Quarterly Journal of

   Economics)

Most LBW (Low Birth Weight) newborns are 'preemies' (born under

37 weeks' gestation).  Instead of prior induced abortions cutting future

premature birth risk, the best and overwhelming evidence is that prior

induced abortions (IAs) RAISE future preterm birth risk.  In October

2009 Dr. Prakesh Shah (Univ. of Toronto), using data from 37 prior abortion-

preemie studies, reported the following in the very prestigious BJOG

(British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology) [1]:

  1. Women with one (1) prior IA raised their relative odds of a

   preterm delivery by 36% [1]

  2. Women with two (2) or more previous IAs nearly doubled

   their odds of a premature birth (+93%) [1]

Steven Levitt was not finished with medical-economic follies, for

in 2005 the Univ. of Chicago professor had his Freakonomics book become

a huge best-seller.  One of Levitt's theories therein was that legalization

of abortion led to a cut in the U.S. crime rate in the 1970s and 1980s.

Levitt did NOT explicitly claim that “Black Americans had a much

elevated crime rate and thus, the very high Black American abortion

rate led to a cut in the U.S. crime rate.” Instead, Levitt emphasized that

it was low socio-economic (i.e. poor) people with the high crime rate &

their high abortion rate led to a crime rate decline. But with an abortion

rate 4.3 times that of Caucasians, poor Black Americans have a higher

rate of abortion rate than do poor Caucasian Americans. Prof. Levitt did

escape the charge of racism by not including the term 'Black American'

or 'African-American' in his argument.

Was Levitt correct about U.S.  legalized abortion reducing the crime  

rate?  The three (3) biggest killers of young Americans (ages 18 through

35 are accidents [mostly car & truck]), homicides, and suicides.  Prof.

Levitt will find zero support for his pet theory of abortion lowering the

crime rate in Finland. Finland has a national abortion registry, so, unlike

the U.S., Finnish medical researchers can reliably identify women with 

prior abortions.  In 1997 the top Scandinavian journal for reproductive

health journal reported that for women with an abortion that in the 12

months ‘after’ had 3 1/2 times the total death risk (from every possible

cause) compared to women who gave birth. [2] For the 3 leading causes

of death for young people the following results were published:

Deaths For Finnish Women

with Prior Abortions

in the 12 months 'after'

________________________________________________

Accidents    4.24 times the rate of women who gave birth

     Suicide     6.46 times the rate of women who gave birth

Homicide   14 times the rate of women who gave birth

_____________________________________________________

Perhaps Univ. of Chicago professor [LOL] Levitt excludes homicides from

his crime analysis.  Prof.  Levitt never listed this 1997 study of Finnish

women. [2] To do so would have revealed Steven D. Levitt to be a clown 

(the kindest word for this dunce 'scholar').  Certainly, other economics

professors must learn the 'Levitt lesson':

  Before an economist makes any pronouncements about medical-

  economics, he must research that 'foreign field' (medicine) VERY

  carefully, or he/she will sink into a quick sand of ignorance.

References

 1  Shah P. et al.  Induced termination of pregnancy and low birthweight and

preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis BJOG 2009; 116(11):

1425-1442

    URL: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122591273/abstract

2  Dr. Mika Gissler et al. Acta Obstetrica et Gyncelogica Scandinavica

    1997, volume 73, pp. 651-657

 

* Brent Rooney is a Canadian researcher and can be reached via e-mail at:  fullterm40@gmail.com

Web site:  http://www.justiceforkids.webs.com/

**********

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org    

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Randall Terry says we can use health care debate to end abortion

GUEST COMMENTARY BY RANDALL TERRY

It is Our Duty Before God to End Child-killing.

God will give us the Grace.

We Can use the Healthcare Debate as one of the Steppingstones to Victory.

I often fear that we fail to grasp the magnitude of our duty to end child-killing, and that we often doubt the inevitability of our victory against this holocaust.

It is certain that God Almighty hates the killing of the innocents. God gives the gift of life, and then commands: You Shall Not Murder. He hates the shedding of innocent blood. (See Proverbs 6:16-19 and Psalm 106:37-42)

Hence, we can declare with absolute certainty that God wants this holocaust end. That being said, we must ask ourselves the tough question: if God wants child killing by abortion to end, why have 50 million babies slaughtered, with no end in sight?

The problem is not with God -- obviously -- it is with us. We are His hands and feet. We are His missionaries. We are the body of Christ. We are the ones commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves, to rescue the innocent, to protect the fatherless, and to seek justice.

After 35 years of the killing fields, and 50 million dead, it is time to reassess what has been done, what has failed, and what we must do to secure complete and total victory: the abolition of legalized child killing from conception until birth.

As I have studied the social revolutions of the past, I have learned that the "irate, tireless minority" that drives the debate - and moves steadily from the fringes to the halls of power -  seizes moments and creates crises that embody their struggle and highlight the injustice that they are fighting.

One need only study the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s to learn from one of the best guidebooks on social revolution written in 100 years.  For example: Rosa Parks was one little black lady, whose "feets was tired," but with the wisdom and courage of a handful of civil rights leaders, they seized on the opportunity presented by their racist adversaries, and turned one small incident of injustice into an epic struggle that resulted in a glorious victory for liberty.

Yes -- Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders received horrible press -- but they fought like warrior poets until they prevailed. Yes -- the confrontational tactics and  incendiary actions and rhetoric of civil rights leaders and activists made many enemies -- but it was a required fare for victory.

I have been steadily dismayed at many pro-lifers around the country who fail to recognize the connection between seizing the moment and creating a crisis for justice, and the ultimate victory for the justice they seek.

Think back over the last few months: how much of the pro-life movement has fought courageously against the modification of the conscience clause for healthcare workers? How many traveled to Notre Dame to denounce President Obama's speech? How many fought deliberately against the nomination of Sotomayor to the  Supreme Court?

Each of those battles in their own right were battles worth fighting, and battles worth losing. But beyond that, they provided golden opportunities to drive the injustice of child killing to center stage. Each of those battles could have been used by every pro-life group in America to decry the brutal murder of children; to call for the end of legalized child killing; to mobilize a public outcry in defense of the unborn. But for the most part, most groups and leaders said little, and did even less.

Let's fast-forward to the health care debate. Thankfully -- a few more leaders and groups are speaking out against child killing in health care -- but is it enough? The response to child killing in health care from many groups and individuals has been tepid, non-confrontational, "quiet and reasonable," and generally without effect.

Beyond that -- if it had not been for the efforts of a handful of pro-lifers in Washington DC and around the country who followed the confrontational and incendiary example of the civil rights movement and other social revolutions -- child-killing would not be a critical and dominant part of this debate. But because of these efforts, every major news outlet acknowledges that the fight to keep child killing out of this bill is at center stage. The Wall Street Journal called it the "new front".

I repeat: it is precisely because certain pro-life advocates refuse to passively and timidly "dialogue" about child killing that child killing is resuming a central location on the political horizon. It is because we are confrontational, irate, and righteously belligerent. Those who put politeness ahead of justice commit sin. Those who want to appear "reasonable" and "prudential" may be trapped in the sins of pride and the fear of man.

How can you "reason" with villains who want to crush the heads of little children? How is it a virtue to be "prudential" when the Nazi guard is about to drop a gas pill into a "shower" filled with Jews and Christians?

Do YOU Want to be the Sledgehammer!?

My question to every pro-lifer is simple: do YOU want to end child killing?

I'm sure you want child-killing to end; I'm sure that you want it to be over; but my question is this: do YOU want to be the sledgehammer in the hand of God that smashes this citadel of injustice?  For example: most of us want the hungry to be fed in the subcontinent of Africa; likewise, most of us want somebody else to take them the food. "Yes, I want them fed. No, I do not want to board a plane and trek up mountains to feed them!"

While I grieve the lack of clarity and valor that has been displayed by many pro-lifers over the last six months, I'm equally certain that we can break the shackles of fear that bind us, and strip off the muzzle of timidity that silences us, and put on the armor of God. We can talk and act in accordance with reality: abortion is murder: the brutal, merciless slaughter of innocent human being. And we will fight against it the with all our hearts until we crush it.

Let us fight to drive child killing from the health bill, doing so in such a way that gives us the momentum we need to drive child killing out of our nation and back to hell where it came from.

Come to DC sometime between September 9 and September 23.

If at all possible, please come to Washington DC anytime between September 9 until September 23.

Starting Wednesday, September 9, until Wednesday, September 23, we will be preaching and protesting, lobbying and leafleting on Capitol Hill. Every weekday we will preach to the Capitol Hill staff from 8:30-9:30 a.m. as they go to work at the entrances of the various Senate and House buildings. Then from 10 AM to 12 noon will be in front of the Cannon office building protesting, while others of our group go inside to meet with every single US Senator and every single U.S. House member - or at least meet with their staffs.

We are not professional lobbyists; we are not interested in their dinner parties; we are not interested in getting invited to some slick event. We want to end child killing. In the meantime, we want to obliterate child killing from the health-care bill, and then use this momentum towards our inevitable victory to crush legalized child killing underfoot.

I hope you will join us.

Go to www.OverturnRoe.com for the easy-to-view schedule.

Finally, we beg your prayers. These are intense days, and we face fearsome enemies. But with the help of God -- who made heaven and earth, and who gives life to these babies -- we will prevail in a mission to end child killing.

In Christ's Wounds kept.

Randall Terry

Thomas More Society of Chicago Demands Immediate Enforcement of Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act

Illinois Supreme Court Urged to, Without Delay, Enforce Federal Law Requiring Physicians to Notify Minor’s Parents before Performing an Abortion

(08/31/09 – Chicago, IL) Today, the Thomas More Society, a public interest law firm based in Chicago, has filed in the lllinois Supreme Court an original action for “writ of mandamus,” asking the Justices to order the immediate enforcement, without further delay, of the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 (“Parental Notice Act” or “the Act”), and directing the members of the Illinois State Medical Disciplinary Board, the Acting Secretary of the Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation, and the Director of the Division of Professional Regulation to expunge and negate their recommendation and order, handed down earlier this month, suspending enforcement of the Parental Notice Act for ninety days.  The Society alleges that these administrative officials acted without legal authority and in defiance of legally required procedures in unilaterally announcing that they would wait three months before enforcing this duly enacted Illinois law and that their illegal action could only be remedied – on a timely basis – by the Supreme Court’s direct and immediate intervention.

The Act requires a physician to notify one of the minor’s parents (legal guardian, step-parent or grandparent living in the same household) before he or she performs an abortion upon a minor, unless the minor petitions the circuit court for a waiver of the notice requirement.  Waivers may be granted if the minor can establish, in a “bypass hearing,” that she is mature enough to make a decision to obtain an abortion without notifying her parents or that notice would not be in her best interests.  Enacted in 1995, the parental notice law was in legal limbo for over a decade until, on September 20, 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court adopted a rule, constitutionally required under federal law, providing for expedited, confidential “bypass” appeals.  Once the new Rule 303A was adopted and after further litigation, on July 14, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Act and the Illinois Supreme Court’s implementing rule.  A few weeks later, when the Court of Appeals issued its mandate, the Parental Notice Act became fully effective and enforceable.

 Yet, on August 4, the members of the Illinois State Medical Disciplinary Board, which is responsible for enforcing the Parental Notice Act against physicians who willfully violate it, issued a recommendation  that the Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation suspend enforcement of the law for ninety days, beginning on August 5, 2009.  The only stated reason was to give physicians more time to comply with the law.  The very next day, this recommendation was adopted by the Acting Secretary of the Department and the Director of the Division of Professional Regulation.

The Thomas More Society’s complaint for writ of mandamus was brought on behalf of ten Illinois citizens and taxpayers, several of whom are also the parents of minor daughters of child bearing age who would want to be notified before their daughters had an abortion. The Society alleges that the defendants acted without any legal authority and, further, that their action constituted a “rule” that could not take effect without prior compliance with the notice and public comment provisions of the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act. “The performance of an abortion upon a minor in Illinois without first notifying one of her parents is illegal,” said Tom Brejcha, President & Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Society.  “Physicians who perform abortions in Illinois have had fourteen years to ‘get ready’ and ‘gear up’ to implement the law, more than enough time to comply with the law. This further delay is a clear usurpation of power and an affront to the People of Illinois, the Illinois General Assembly, Governor Edgar who signed this bipartisan law and the Illinois Supreme Court which adopted Rule 303A in 2006.”  The lawsuit asks the Illinois Supreme Court to enter a writ of mandamus directing the defendants to expunge their order suspending enforcement of the law and to enforce the law without further delay.

Contacts: Tom Brejcha, President & Chief Counsel, Thomas More Society (312) 782-1680, (312) 590-3408 (cell)

Tom Ciesielka, TC Public Relations (312) 422-1333 tc@tcpr.net                                                               

# # #

About the Thomas More Society

The Thomas More Society is a public interest law firm that counsels and defends those who work to protect innocent human life, defends those who proclaim faith-based values in our nation’s public square, and strives to protect the institution of marriage as a union of man and woman formed to beget, bear and nurture new human lives. For more information, please visit: www.thomasmoresociety.org.

Pro-Life Leadership Training in Washington DC, June 12 - 14 with Randall Terry, Dr. Alan Keyes, Norma McCorvey and others

EDITOR'S NOTE:  With recent polling indicating a majority of Americans now consider themselves pro-life, it is time for those who endeavor to protect lives of the innocent unborn to come together.  A seminar organized by Randall Terry, a long time pro-life advocate, will be sure to provide enlightenment for individuals and groups who see this issue as one of the most important crusades of our times.  Below is a message from Mr. Terry detailing how you can learn more about this timely event. -- Daniel Zanoza, Executive Director, RFFM.org

From Randall Terry

You are invited!

I have been in this battle for 25 years; I can promise you that you will learn more about strategy, tactics, how to deal with the press, etc., than any leadership training you have ever attended.

Schedule: Friday night, 7- 9 P.M., Saturday, 10 A.M. - 4:00 P.M., and 7 P.M - 9:00 P.M.

The evening rallies at 7 P.M. are free, and open to the public. An offering will be taken.

The seminar - Saturday, 10:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (lunch included) has a cost structure. (See below.)

On Sunday morning, we will take a tour of some inspirational D.C. monuments (Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial and more.)

We will introduce a four pronged battle plan on how to derail the U.S. Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Whether we prevail or not, it is a fight from which we must not shrink; and if we fight as we should, we can set the wheels in motion for future victories.

Moreover, the tools we give you for this battle can be used in ANY fight you encounter in your area.

If you were impressed with what happened at Notre Dame; if you would like to create and lead a community of pro-life warriors in your town; if you would like to learn from seasoned leaders, then please come.

Details 

If you are interested in coming to this training, contact us right away at: training@overturnroe.com

Cost: The rooms are $99 per night, plus tax. (see below)

Cost for seminar: One adult: $125; Spouse; $50; Child, $25 each.

Every $125 attendee will receive all four of Mr. Terry's books that are in print, as well as the brand new fourteen part training TV series, "Insurrecta Nex," which deals with the history, philosophy and theology of social revolution in America's past, and how those lessons must be applied to the fight to end child-killing. In addition, you will receive a complete set of facilitator notes to hold training in your area.

Hotel arrangements: Doubletree Hotel at Crystal City, 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA, 22202. $99 per night. Phone: 1-800-222-8733; When you call, use the group name, Overturn Roe. Group Code: "OTR"

For more information involving Randall Terry and associated organizations go to:  http://www.overturnroe.com/  or  http://www.stopobamanotredame.com/ 

Tiller Murder Wrong: But He Still Was A Baby Killer--Not A Hero

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

"Thou Shalt Not Kill."  This law was given to Moses by God as part of the Ten Commandments.  Jesus Christ Himself said everyone should follow this law, Jew and Gentile alike.  Indeed, one of Christ's most important messages was to love our neighbor, especially our enemies, and He told us to pray for those who do evil.  Therefore, any Christian who tries to live a Christlike life, is obliged to adhere to these teachings.

However, in all honesty, when I first heard about the murder of Dr. George Tiller, at best, my reaction was ambivalence.  What came to my mind was Tiller's murderer had damaged gains made by those who fight for the lives and rights of the innocent unborn.  I thought about how pro-abortionists would paint the pro-life community with a broad brush of condemnation, essentially saying we are all right-wing fanatics and terrorists.

But the second thought which entered my mind concerned Tiller's thirty-five year career, while he performed over 60,000 late-term abortions.  Before the death of Tiller, there were only three so-called physicians, including Tiller, who were willing to partake in this evil practice and that number  has now been reduced by one.  I won't apologize for thinking about the innocent tens of thousands of babies who faced death just before experiencing life.

Here is a description of how Tiller did his "work".  A woman, according to Kansas law, could claim she needed an abortion because of "mental distress".  Tiller, in order to perform one of these procedures would inject a saline solution into the mother's womb.  This chemical cocktail would literally burn the child within--before the baby succumbed to suffocation.  Then the woman was induced into labor and instructed to sit on something most of us would describe as a toilet.  The abortion was completed when the baby was delivered by the mother, who was quickly ushered out of the area, so she wouldn't see the results of Dr. Tiller's labor and what should have been her own.

If anyone is offended by my description of what Tiller did, while making millions of dollars in the process, you should be!  Of course, there are other horrific methods, used by so-called doctors like Tiller, including partial-birth abortion which are even more horrific--if that's possible.  Though not connected with Tiller, former nurse Jill Stanek, who worked at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois told America about what became known as live-birth abortion.  This bit of horror included the occasional birth of live babies who survived botched abortions.  These children were left to die, while medical staffers stood by watching these children of God gasp for their last breath.  In fact, thanks to Stanek, something that we only could envision in a nightmare was exposed.  The hospital then instituted something they called "comfort care" which allowed hospital staff to at least hold and "comfort" these unwanted babies until they died.  Before this so-called expression of humane treatment, Stanek told of babies left alone to die in dirty linen closets, a fate which even mass murderers would not face at their time when justice was administered.  NOTE:  Then Illinois state Senator Barack Obama voted against legislation (Born Alive Infants Protection Act) which would have protected these children from a terrible death.

At the same time, my thoughts and prayers were centered on the family of Tiller.  Like the babies he killed, these were innocent victims of the killer's actions.  Of course, the latter should have been my lone Christian response.  Although I hoped and prayed that before Tiller met his fate, he had asked for forgiveness from the Lord regarding the lifetime of carnage which he wrought on thousands of babies.

I cannot stand in judgment of Tiller as a Christian because Christ said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."  And, most certainly, I am a sinful human being, only deserving of salvation because of the blood shed by Christ on the cross.

Yet my reaction to the killing of Tiller was human.  The fact Tiller was murdered in a church is ironic to the utmost degree.  A man performed a great act of evil in a place of worship.  We don't know what was in the mind of the murderer.  Was he driven by passion?  Whatever the case or excuse, contrary to the thinking of those who support abortion, the ends never justify the means.

But, for a moment, and just for a moment, what would have been our reaction if we were God-fearing Germans, alive and aware of the "Final Solution" Hitler planned for the Jews during World War II?  As Christians, what should have been our reaction if we learned of the murders by Nazis--which eventually totaled six million Jews and four million other human beings?  At the time, the persecution of innocent human beings--in a nation gone mad--was totally within the law.  What if Joseph Goebbels, SS Chief Heinrich Himmler, Adolph Eichmann, Hermann Goering or Adolph Hitler himself were murdered during their reign of terror between 1933 and 1945?  Now before you respond, remember the persecution of Jews and other human beings defined as "undesirables" by the German state was legal, completely within the law.  It was the same situation which Christians faced during their persecution under Nero, Caligula and other Roman Emperors.  In the early years of America, blacks were not considered human beings, they were considered property.  Indeed, a U.S. Supreme Court decision titled "Dred Scott" upheld this abhorrent notion--until a civil war was fought, resulting in the deaths of over 600,000 people.  Again, in the South, slavery was legal and anyone who disregarded the law was subject to the harshest of penalties, including blacks themselves--who sought their freedom.

Now, there are those who believe unborn babies are human beings, deserving of rights accorded to everyone.  However, due to a Dred Scott type decision, handed down by our nation's highest court, titled Roe v. Wade, unborn babies have less rights than the slaves had--before their emancipation.

These facts do not justify the murder of George Tiller.  However, these facts should present a moral dilemma within us all.  To some, John Brown, the radical abolitionist was a hero to millions, before he was hung.  There is still a debate over whether Brown was a visionary or a murdering madman who  operated outside the law.  Brown's actions were outside the law, but the morality of his crusade is still debated by historians today. 

Once again, so I am not misunderstood, according to my faith and the law, I cannot condone or justify murder under any circumstance and all reasonable pro-lifers, like myself, will agree.

However, contrary to the mainstream media, Tiller is not and should not be considered a hero or a defender of women's rights.  In an interview, one of Tiller's neighbors said, "I admired his work.  He was a true advocate for all women."  If this individual would have seen the results of Tiller's work, she would have thrown up on the spot.  But political correctness has sanitized the practice of abortion.  In fact, political correctness leads our society to refer to the deadly procedure as a "choice" and not what it really is--the taking of innocent human life. 

Just 36 years ago, abortion was illegal in America.  During America's entire existence, until a questionable Supreme Court ruling relegated the innocent unborn to mere property, the practice was considered as abhorrent as the misguided and sinful murder of an abortion doctor in Kansas.

Hopefully, Tiller's murderer will receive the justice he deserves.  In the same breath, we can all pray one day the innocent unborn will receive the justice and life they deserve as well.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

When Is Operation Rescue Not Operation Rescue? Randall Terry No Longer Linked To Group: Trademark Battle Ahead

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director 
 
The other day I sent an e-mail to Randall Terry through his organization, Operation Rescue.  Well, at least I thought Operation Rescue was Mr. Terry's group and he is arguing it still is.  However, my attempt to contact Terry lead to a response from one of Terry's former associates who now controls the trademark and domain name for the organization.
 
There are times when an individual is inexorably linked to an organization.  When one thinks of Operation Rescue, the name Randall Terry automatically comes to mind.  I called Terry about this issue and he told me soon there would be a battle over just who owns the trademark for Operation Rescue.  "We're not looking for money," said Terry.  "I just want my name back."
 
Terry also said he believes the loss of the Operation Rescue trademark is identity theft.  "I've attended events where people have asked me if I received their recent donation," added Terry.  "I told them 'if you sent a contribution to Wichita, I didn't get it.'"
 
I also received a response from Cheryl Sullenger, Senior Policy Advisor, who was responding on behalf of Troy Newman, who--for now--is president of the organization and holds the Operation Rescue trademark.  Sullenger wrote, "You should be aware that Randall Terry is not associated in any way with Operation Rescue or www.operationrescue.org.  It is a violation of our trademark to say that he is..."  

But, in any case, I think it is important to know, for the moment, Randall Terry's official website is  www.StopObamaNotreDame.com. 

Terry also has a website where he goes into great detail concerning the specifics on the fight over the Operation Rescue trademark http://www.operationrescuetheft.com/.
 
The minutiae involving Terry's efforts to regain control of the Operation Rescue trademark are complicated. 
 
I am not an expert on commercial law.  Any attempt on my part to predict the outcome of this trademark battle would be foolish.  Yet whether one agrees with Randall Terry or not, as far as the pro-life issue is concerned, many will agree Operation Rescue and Randall Terry are one and the same. 
 
For now, the public needs to be aware that Randall Terry cannot be reached at Operation Rescue.  Donations to Randall Terry's efforts will not reach him through Operation Rescue either.
 
Hopefully, this issue will be resolved amicably and soon.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Obama's Visit to Notre Dame: Randall Terry Had The Right Approach

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

"He's too much of a self-promoter," said one pro-life activist.  "His 'in your face' style may be harmful to the pro-life cause," said another.  Who are these pro-lifers talking about?  Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue www.StopObamaNotreDame.com 

Some believe the wishy-washy approach regarding the fight for the lives of the innocent unborn is the way to go in our society which is driven by political correctness.  But, in reality, too many people are wishy-washy when it comes to the battle against the mass genocide which has taken place since the passage of Roe v. Wade into law by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973.

Some estimates put the number of human lives destroyed through abortion at 50 million or more since our nation's high court legalized the procedure.  When will Americans come to the realization that abortion is more than a "choice"?  The practice includes the spilling of real blood and real human beings are destroyed to the tune of 1.5 million babies per year.  Abortion is the true Holocaust of our times.

President Barack Obama told Notre Dame's graduating class of 2009 that those who represent both sides of the issue should find common ground regarding the debate of one of the most contentious issues of our time.  Obama's words brought to mind the Old Testament story of King Solomon where two women were claiming parenthood of the same child.  Solomon, in his wisdom, suggested the baby be literally cut in two, in order to solve the dilemma, knowing full well the real Mother would rather give up her child than see its demise, quickly giving up her claim, whereby Solomon knew who was the true parent.  The issue was settled and the baby was given the life it deserved.

Under Barack Obama's suggested "compromise", we can use Solomon's dilemma as a template which leads us to the understanding there can be no middle ground between those who see abortion as a matter of "choice" and those who know the lives of real human beings are at stake.

During the many protests leading up to Obama's Notre Dame visit--where he was given an honorary degree from the Catholic University--Randall Terry was criticized for what some say was an uncompromising position on the issue of abortion.  However, if we look at the carnage which is the result of so-called "choice", Terry's tactics were hardly radical.

Some demonstrators pushed carriages with baby dolls covered with stage blood to emphasize what takes place in abortion mills across the country every day.  But Terry's mock depiction of these horrors were mild in comparison to the very real scenarios which are common place in abortion mills.

Norma McCorvey was one of those arrested while protesting at Notre Dame.  McCorvey, who was the plaintiff called "Roe" in the Roe v. Wade case, is now a staunch advocate for the rights of the innocent unborn.  McCorvey, who at one time worked in a Planned Parenthood abortion facility, saw something that changed her life.  One day, after hours, McCorvey opened a locked refrigerator which contained hundreds of aborted babies; some were in pieces, some of these children could hardly be recognized as human beings, while others were nearly whole as they were aborted mere hours before the chance to experience life.  McCorvey's experience was something right out of a horror film, but the image that was seared into her mind forever was real.  McCorvey's experience, which helped to change her opinion on abortion, makes Terry's bit of theatre look mild.

There are those who see Terry's tactics as being offensive.  In reality, abortion itself is offensive.  The silent screams of unborn children are real, even though society refuses to hear them.  Perhaps it is time to expose the truth.  Abortionists have successfully sanitized what is truly barbaric.  Even their terminology denies the human carnage which takes place in America every day.

Is Randall Terry's "in your face" approach to the subject of abortion offensive?  Yes...and it should be.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

President of Catholic Citizens of Illinois, Mary Anne Hackett, addresses Americans For Life rally

EDITOR'S NOTE:  On Friday, May 22nd, 2009, Mary Anne Hackett, President and CEO of Catholic Citizens of Illinois [www.catholiccitizens.org/] and former president of the Illinois Right to Life Committee [http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/] was one of those who gave a speech at the First Annual Americans For Life [http://www.americansforlife.com] Rally and March in downtown Chicago.  Below is the text of Mrs. Hackett's words to the gathering.

"The Order Has Been Given" by Mary Anne Hackett

Today is a memorial for the 50 million innocent, voiceless, unborn babies who have been killed by abortion in America since the Roe v. Wade decision 35 years ago.  Stalin said one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.  Have we come to regard the death of 50 million babies as simply a statistic? 

After World War II, when the Nuremburg trials were set up to punish the Germans for war crimes, abortion was listed as a crime against humanity.  And, indeed it is, for every child that is killed ends a family and all of their descendants.  A country that kills its children is a country in despair.

The 20th Century was rightly called the bloodiest century in history.  As we look back at the major dictators of recent history--Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein--who killed millions of their own people, when we think of terrible massacres in Rwanda, we should remember that they themselves did not do the killing.  They simply gave the order.  

Now, President Obama has given the order!  – to export abortion throughout the world paid for by the American taxpayer, to use embryonic children for research and spare parts, to roll back all of the restrictions on abortion and force doctors to perform them and religious hospitals to refer them.  Is this the President’s plan to reduce the number of abortions?  The well known author, Michael O’Brien, speaking of President Obama, commented:  “When all the rhetoric is boiled down to its substance, the man is advocating unlimited state-sanctioned murder.”  “That he intends to become the most effective advocate of murder of the unborn ever seen in America should give us pause.”

Will history look back at our country and our President with the same horror as they regard the mass murderers of the past?  Has the slogan “Never again!” become so short-lived that is forgotten?

Children are our future, the treasure of our country, our inheritance from the Lord!  It is time to stop this Holocaust in America.  We must not wait for the death of millions more;  we must begin to take back our country today!

**********

AMERICANS FOR LIFE press release "RALLY AND MARCH FOR LIFE":  http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/05/americans-for-life-1st-annual-rally-and-march-for-life-may-22nd-chicago.html 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org.
 
NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.