Monday, October 15, 2012

Girl Scouts, Sullied

Bolding - my emphasis
Friday, 03 June 2011
A Catholic bishop just released a warning to Catholic parents about – of all things – the Girl Scouts. Auxiliary Bishop James Conley of Denver praises the Girl Scouts for forming “the young person in a spirit of service” and a “sense of duty to the wider community.” The group also “builds character and cultivates civic pride.”  

But, says Conley, “over the past year, a growing number of Catholic parents and youth ministers have shared concern with me. Their unease involves the Girl Scouts and especially the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGS).”
Conley says parents should explore the Girl Scouts and WAGGS websites and pay attention to all the links, which will be a “sobering experience.” 

He quotes one youth minister:
“It’s hard to imagine that a girl who remains involved with Girl Scouts into young adulthood won’t eventually learn of the connection her organization has with ‘pro-choice,’ pro-contraception, and ‘reproductive freedom’ groups. Having been influenced by GSUSA, she’ll be more receptive to this agenda. And if she was introduced to GSUSA through her parents and her local parish, then that will inevitably create contradiction between her Catholic faith and her Scouting experience.”
This is strong language from a respected Catholic bishop, but he likely will not be the only one stepping up to warn Catholic parents about what has happened to the Girl Scouts. Many other bishops are now reviewing their diocese’s connection with this once esteemed institution. 

Scrutiny of the Girl Scouts increased exponentially over the past year and a half since the group I lead, C-FAM (Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute) reported on a Girl Scout panel held at – where else? – the United Nations. We have watched the Girl Scouts for years as they have participated in the annual U. N. Commission on the Status of Women, what can only be described as a pro-abortion jamboree. 

Two years ago we sent some high school students into the Girl Scout panel, a panel where parents are not allowed. These wholesome young girls from a Catholic high school in Rhode Island said the panel was “creepy,” including odd role-playing about their bodies.

A year ago, one of our colleagues was sufficiently concerned that she went to the U. N. Girl Scout panel. She sat down, but was immediately asked to leave by the Girl Scout handlers. No parents allowed. So she hung around outside the locked door and when the meeting broke up she immediately went inside. What she found shocked her, a stack of brochures called “Healthy, Hot, and Happy,” which, among other things extols the virtues of anal sex. The brochure, produced by Planned Parenthood, is intended for adolescents with HIV/AIDS.
 
    The offending brochure
What was this material doing at a closed-door Girl Scout panel? For that, one has to look at what has been a long time relationship between the Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood. 

In 2004 a Girl Scout troop in Texas held a conference at which they distributed sexually graphic brochures, not unlike the one at the U. N. Girl Scout panel. This caused a nationwide stink including a boycott of Girl Scout cookies. Girl Scouts USA President Kathy Cloninger appeared on the Today Show to try and calm everybody down.
Cloninger actually admitted, however, that the Girl Scouts work with Planned Parenthood: 
“We have relationships with our church communities, with YMCAs, and with Planned Parenthood organizations across the county, to bring information-based sex education programs to girls.” 
Even during the present crisis, the Girl Scouts have not denied or clarified this statement. They do say the Girl Scouts does not have a formal relationship with Planned Parenthood. Lots of wiggle room in that word “formal.” 

After the report about their panel at the United Nations and the vulgar brochures, Girl Scout flacks in New York swung into action and offered various justifications. They have claimed that the brochures weren’t in the room, that someone else must have left them there, that if they were in the room the Girl Scouts did not distribute them – and so on. 

A group called the National Federation of Catholic Youth Ministries has given cover to the Girl Scouts. This group supports and promotes scouting among Catholic schoolgirls. But they are folks who are supposed to be watching out for our girls. Its Executive Director, Robert McCarty, did his own “investigation” and, no surprise, gave the Girl Scouts a clean bill of health. What’s more, the report attacked C-FAM for making the initial report. Did his report address the comment by Kathy Cloninger that the Girl Scouts have a relationship with Planned Parenthood? Or any of the evidence that Girl Scout troops actually run programs with Planned Parenthood? Not a peep. 

I suspect that at the U. N. Planned Parenthood, being quite cozy with the Girl Scouts, said something like, “can we put these brochures in the room for your conference” and the Girl Scout leaders told their Planned Parenthood friends, “sure no problem,” all the while thinking that no one was watching. 

But this is only the tip of the iceberg. Many Catholic parents – and now bishops – are waking up the fact that the Girl Scouts at the national and international level have been taken over by the pelvic left, who are busy trying to indoctrinate our girls with their agenda. 

Parents should know that there are alternatives to the Girl Scouts. American Heritage Girls, for instance, is quite wholesome and free of the questionable ideology that has infiltrated Girl Scouts USA. American Heritage Girls even signed a letter of cooperation with the Boy Scouts, who have remained so true to their mission they are regularly attacked by the usual crew.

It is not too late to save the Girl Scouts, but only if people inside and outside the organization take action to stop the corruption of yet another American institution.


 
By Austin Ruse    
Austin Ruse is the President of the New York and Washinton, D.C.-based Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), a research institute that focuses exclusively on international social policy. The opinions expressed here are Mr. Ruse’s alone and do not necessarily reflect the policies or positions of C-FAM.

 
 
©2011 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org
 
The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Contraception, Politics, and Culture

Catholics have been energized politically since the revelation of the religious-liberty-destroying HHS mandate forcing contraception coverage in violation of the consciences of Catholic employers. While it is clear to most orthodox Catholics, some Protestants, and those well-versed in Constitutional law that the HHS mandate is abhorrent, it is equally clear that nominal Catholics, other Protestants, and secular society see no problem with contraception as health care.

There is something to be said for winning small battles, and for winning political battles, and I certainly don’t want Catholics or the Bishops to let up their pressure on the Obama administration for forcing its mandate on us. I think it is shortsighted, though, to see the endgame as simply overturning the mandate; similarly, I don’t think it suffices to express our dissent from the mandate as simply because “it violates our first amendment rights.” A huge proportion of the population not only doesn’t see anything wrong with contraception, but considers it a great good for society. I imagine most of these people think it is just as odd for Catholics to be against contraception as it is for the Amish to be against electricity. Therefore, we need to not only explain why we are against the contraception mandate, but why we are against contraception itself (which T&C bloggers have done many times; some examples are here, here, and here).

In discussions among faithful Catholics about contraception, the point usually gets made that we do not hear enough about the evils of contraception from the pulpit. Not being a priest myself, I can only speculate on why this might be: 1) some priests do not know (I can’t imagine) or 2) do not agree with the Church’s teaching, continuing the “tradition” of dissent from Humanae Vitae, but the most likely reason seems to be that 3) priests do not want to alienate their flock, the vast majority of whom (they assume) buy into the secular mindset that contraception is kosher.
Why would priests assume this? Well, again, in discussions among faithful Catholics about contraception, the point also usually gets made that “90% of Catholics contracept.” It isn’t clear where this high percentage comes from, but our priests deserve to know about recent polls that refute it. Matt mentioned one a while ago, and Emily at CatholicVote mentioned another last week:
The data confirms that most Catholic women do not fully support the Church’s teachings on contraception and natural family planning. However, Catholic women who regularly participate in the Church’s sacramental life (Mass and Confession) agree with the teachings on contraception and family planning in significantly higher numbers than women overall. Moreover, many Catholic women express partial agreement with these teachings and show encouraging receptivity to learning more about them. This receptivity offers the Church a previously unrealized opportunity to communicate those teachings more persuasively and effectively…
Our data suggests that the Church might do well to focus pastoral outreach on the “soft middle,” women who neither embrace the Church’s teaching on contraception, nor reject it out of hand. A strong plurality (44%) of church-going women express a nuanced view of Church teachings, saying they accept “parts” but “not all” of the teaching on contraception. These women embrace their faith (90% overall say their Catholic faith is an important part of daily life) and few show hardened opposition to the Church’s authority (just 18% say their partial rejection of the Church’s teaching is because they do not accept the Church’s moral authority on these issues).
Fifty-three percent of weekly Mass-goers who accept parts but not all of Church teaching indicate some openness to learning more about the Church teachings on contraception. And two-thirds (67%) of these receptive women are already connected in some way to parish life. In short, they are reachable, given the right message and approach. The most persuasive messages may be more practical and benefits-oriented than spiritual or authoritative. Women show interest in hearing testimonies from other couples on the health and relationship benefits of natural family planning (23%) and natural family planning’s effectiveness (22%). They also indicate interest in a doctor’s recommendation of natural family planning and its effectiveness (23%) and studies that show natural family planning is highly effective (22%).
The research doesn’t paint the rosiest of pictures; Catholics have not been immune from the sexual licentiousness our culture has been bent on promoting for the past half-century. But I think the following conclusions can certainly be made:
  1. If priests do not talk to their congregations about contraception, the culture will. I can’t imagine another issue of Church teaching where priests would defer to the majority opinion on the matter. The culture doesn’t seem too keen on accepting that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist or that he was God as well as man, but no priest would back down on these teachings. While every priest would promote the eighth commandment, what is contraception if not lying with one’s body?
  2. The people in the pews every week are a much more sympathetic audience than priests may think. Even if a large proportion of Catholics use contraception (which is disputed), the proportion falls dramatically when you look at regular Mass attendees. And even among those who don’t fully agree with the Church’s teaching, many are open to hearing more.
  3. Educating the parish is not just the priests’ job. The laity, who may have more medical knowledge or practical experience with NFP and the side-effects of contraception, need to step up as educators, mentors, and friends for those who struggle with the Church’s teaching or with using Natural Family Planning.
So be emboldened, priest-readers of T&C. Many in the pews agree with the Church’s teaching on contraception, many want to hear more about the Church’s teaching on contraception, and very few adamantly disagree with it. Don’t be concerned that some may think  “this saying is hard; who can accept it?” When you preach on this subject, you will be preaching to the choir but the choir will thank you for it.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

A Picture is Worth 1000 Words

"I know a former pro-choice nurse who was converted to a pro-life position after seeing premature babies being frantically saved by a medical team in one room, while down the hall, babies the same age were being aborted."

  ~Randy Alcorn
 

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Aborted Human Fetal Tissue Used By PepsiCo, Kraft, and Nestle

The Obama Administration has given its blessing to PepsiCo to continue utilizing the services of a company that produces flavor chemicals for the beverage giant using aborted human fetal tissue. LifeSiteNews.com reports that the Obama Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) has decided that PepsiCo's arrangement with San Diego, Cal.-based Senomyx, which produces flavor enhancing chemicals for Pepsi using human embryonic kidney tissue, simply constitutes "ordinary business operations."

The issue began in 2011 when the non-profit group Children of God for Life (CGL) first broke the news about Pepsi's alliance with Senomyx, which led to massive outcry and a worldwide boycott of Pepsi products. At that time, it was revealed that Pepsi had many other options at its disposal to produce flavor chemicals, which is what its competitors do, but had instead chosen to continue using aborted fetal cells -- or as Senomyx deceptively puts it, "isolated human taste receptors"

A few months later, Pepsi' shareholders filed a resolution petitioning the company to "adopt a corporate policy that recognizes human rights and employs ethical standards which do not involve using the remains of aborted human beings in both private and collaborative research and development agreements." But the Obama Administration shut down this 36-page proposal, deciding instead that Pepsi's used of aborted babies to flavor its beverage products is just business as usual, and not a significant concern.

"We're not talking about what kind of pencils PepsiCo wants to use -- we are talking about exploiting the remains of an aborted child for profit," said Debi Vinnedge, Executive Director of CGL, concerning the SEC decision. "Using human embryonic kidney (HEK-293) to produce flavor enhancers for their beverages is a far cry from routine operations!"

To be clear, the aborted fetal tissue used to make Pepsi's flavor chemicals does not end up in the final product sold to customers, according to reports -- it is used, instead, to evaluate how actual human taste receptors respond to these chemical flavorings. But the fact that Pepsi uses them at all when viable, non-human alternatives are available illustrates the company's blatant disregard for ethical and moral concerns in the matter.

Back in January, Oklahoma Senator Ralph Shortey proposed legislation to ban the production of aborted fetal cell-derived flavor chemicals in his home state. If passed, S.B. 1418 would also reportedly ban the sale of any products that contain flavor chemicals derived from human fetal tissue, which includes Pepsi products as well as products produced by Kraft and Nestle

(http://www.naturalnews.com).

Thursday, March 15, 2012

First Lawsuit From Business Owner Challenges Obama HHS Mandate

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 3/15/12 12:02 PM

A first-of-a-kind federal lawsuit has been filed against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on behalf of a business owner who contends the HHS contraceptive mandate violates his constitutionally-protected religious beliefs.


While most of the attention on the controversial new mandate has been focused on religious groups who are opposed to the Obama mandate forcing them to pay for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions for their employees, this new lawsuit brings attention to religious employers who are not running church or church-related organizations.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a pro-life legal organization that focuses on constitutional law, file the lawsuit on behalf of the Missouri employer. The lawsuit also requests that the court issue a permanent injunction prohibiting the HHS from requiring those who have religious objections to abide by the mandate, which requires employers to purchase health insurance for their employees that includes coverage for contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.

The ACLJ represents Frank R. O’Brien and O’Brien Industrial Holdings, LLC (OIH) – a holding company based in St. Louis, Missouri. O’Brien is chairman of OIH which operates a number of businesses that explore, mine, and process refractory and ceramic raw materials, with its products going to more than 40 countries.

The lawsuit marks the first legal challenge to the HHS mandate from a private business owner and his company. Until now, only religious organizations or institutions have brought lawsuits challenging the mandate.

“The HHS mandate would require business people like our client to leave their religious beliefs at home every day as a condition of doing business in our society,” said Francis J. Manion, Senior Counsel of the ACLJ who is representing O’Brien. “The HHS mandate tells people like Frank O’Brien that they have to choose between conducting their business in a manner consistent with their moral values, or conducting their business in a manner consistent with the government’s values. The constitution does not allow the government to impose such a choice.”

O’Brien, a Catholic, says his religious beliefs provide the framework for the operation of his businesses, which employ 87 people. The company website states the OIH mission “is to make our labor a pleasing offering to the Lord while enriching our families and society.” OIH’s statement of the company’s values begins with the following: “Integrity. Our conduct is guided by the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments. We will not discriminate based on anyone’s personal belief system.”
O’Brien also has implemented a variety of company-participating programs to assist employees in purchasing homes, saving for the college education of their children, and being able to retire.
The lawsuit contends that the HHS mandate “imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion by coercing Plaintiffs to choose between conducting their business in accordance with their religious beliefs or paying substantial penalties to the government.”

Manion rejects criticism that opposition to the mandate somehow prohibits others from obtaining insurance coverage they desire.

“O’Brien and other people of faith aren’t looking to stand in the way of anybody’s access to anything,” said Manion. “They just don’t want the government forcing them to pay for services that go against their sincerely-held beliefs. The State of Missouri has its own ‘contraceptives mandate,’ but, unlike the Obama Administration’s Department of HHS, Missouri respects and protects those employers, like Frank O’Brien, with religious objections. There is no good reason why the federal government couldn’t — and shouldn’t – do the same. The Constitution, in fact, demands nothing less.”

The lawsuit, posted here, asks the court to declare that the HHS mandate violates the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The suit also requests the court to issue a permanent injunction to halt implementation of the HHS mandate for those who have religious objections.
 
The lawsuit names as defendants, the Department of Health and Human Services and Secretary Sebelius; the Department of the Treasury and Secretary Geithner; and the Department of Labor and Secretary Solis. The ACLJ is being assisted in this lawsuit by the Fidelis Center for Law and Policy, a Chicago-based educational and advocacy group.
 
Polling data shows Americans are strongly opposed to the Obama mandate. A February Rasmussen Reports national telephone surveyfinds 38 percent of likely voters think health insurance companies should be required by law to cover the morning after pill without co-payments or other charges to the patient. But 50 percent of Americans disagree and oppose this requirement while 13 percent are undecided.
 
Also in February, a CNN survey indicated half of Americans oppose the new mandate pro-abortion President Barack Obama put in place that requires religious employers to pay for birth control or drugs that can cause abortions.
 
The new Obama mandate that requires religious groups to pay for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions for their employees could result in fines as much as $2,000 per employee or $100 each day if they refuse to comply.

Despite a vote in the Senate against overturning it, nation’s Catholic bishops and leading pro-life groups vow to continue fighting the Obama mandate that forces religious employers to pay for birth control and drugs that may cause abortion.

The mandate has already become the subject of several lawsuits.

Tell Obama: Stop This Pro-Abortion Mandate
Meanwhile, more than a dozen state attorneys general have signed onto a joint letter Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning started coordinating  against the controversial Obama mandate requiring religious employers to cover birth control and drugs that can cause abortions
Bruning has contacted each of his colleagues in 49 states and has already been joined by a dozen, including South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. Together, the three lawmakers have co-signed a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebilius, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis over the Obama mandate.

Also, the largest Catholic pro-life group and Catholic television station have filed suit against the new Obama mandate that forces religious employers like them to pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs in employee health insurance. The EWTN Global Catholic Network filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama against the Department of Health & Human Services, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and other government agencies seeking to stop the imposition of the anti-conscience mandate as well as asking the court for a declaratory judgment that the mandate is unconstitutional.

Priests for Life, a New York based international pro-life organization of Catholic clergy and laity, filed a lawsuit against the Obama Administration in an effort to seek injunctive relief from impending regulations that would require the organization to pay for employee health insurance that covers abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization.

The Obama administration asked a federal court to dismiss yet another lawsuit filed against the Obama administration over its mandate.

This was its first opportunity to explain to the court and the country why the mandate is not illegal and unconstitutional. The Obama administration did not defend the constitutionality of the mandate, but said the lawsuit should be thrown out because the administration plans to revise the mandate to make it on insurance companies to pay for coverage rather than employers, who will still have to make referrals.

“Plaintiff’s challenge to the preventive services coverage regulations is not fit for judicial review because defendants [Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius] have indicated that they will propose and finalize changes to the regulations that are intended to accommodate plaintiff’s religious objections to providing contraception coverage,” the Department of Justice (DOJ) wrote in its brief to the Washington, D.C. District Court.

Obama officials claim the mandate does not put forth any “immediate injury” to religious groups.
Luke Goodrich, Deputy General Counsel of the Becket Fund, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic university, says he thinks the Obama administrations argument will not stand up in court.
“It doesn’t argue that the mandate is legal; it doesn’t argue that the mandate is constitutional,” Goodrich said. “Instead, it begs the court to ignore the lawsuit because the government plans to change the mandate at some unspecified date in the future.”

“Apparently, the administration has decided that the mandate, as written and finalized, is constitutionally indefensible,” said Hannah Smith, senior counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty “Its only hope is to ask the court to look the other way based on an empty promise to possibly change the rules in the future.”

The panel that put together the mandate has been condemned for only having pro-abortion members even though polling shows Americans are opposed to the mandate.

More than 50 members of Congress banded together at a press conference to demand legislation to stop the new mandate pro-abortion President Barack Obama put in place forcing religious employers to pay for insurance coverage including birth control and abortion-inducing drugs.

Congressman Jeff Fortenberry held a press conference with supporters of the bipartisan, bicameral Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. His legislation would protect the religious liberty and conscience rights of every American who objects to being forced by the strong-arm of government to pay for drugs and procedures recently mandated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The Fortenberry bill currently has the support of approximately 220 Members of Congress and Senators, the most strongly-supported legislative remedy to the controversial HHS mandate.  This measure would repeal the controversial mandate, amending the 2010 health care law to preserve conscience rights for religious institutions, health care providers, and small businesses who pay for health care coverage.

H.R. 1179 enjoys the endorsements of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Right to Life Committee, Americans United for Life, and other organizations.  Numerous other organizations, including the Christian Medical Association and Family Research Council, have urged support of the bill.

Sen. Roy Blunt, a pro-life Missouri Republican, is putting forward the Blunt Amendment, #1520, again, and it is termed the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. According to information provided to LifeNews from pro-life sources on Capitol Hill, the Blunt Amendment will be the first amendment voted on when the Senate returns to the transportation bill. The amendment would allow employers to decline coverage of services in conflict with religious beliefs.

Republicans are moving swiftly with legislation, amendments, and potential hearings on the mandatethe Obama administration has put in place that forces religious employers to pay for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs for their employees.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops  issued a statement saying Obama’s revised mandate involves “needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions” and it urged Congress to overturn the rule and promised a potential lawsuit.

Meanwhile, the Republican presidential candidates had been taking verbal swings at Obama for imposing the original mandate on religious employers, which is not popular in the latest public opinion poll and which even some Democrats oppose.

Congressman Steve Scalise has led a bipartisan letter with 154 co-signers calling on the Obama Administration to reverse its mandate forcing religious organizations to include drugs that can cause abortion and birth control in the health care plans of their employees.

The original mandate was so egregious that even the normally reliably liberal and pro-abortion USA Today condemned it in an editorial titled, “Contraception mandate violates religious freedom.”
The administration initially approved a recommendation from the Institute of Medicine suggesting that it force insurance companies to pay for birth control and drugs that can cause abortions under the Obamacare government-run health care program.

The IOM recommendation, opposed by pro-life groups, called for the Obama administration to require insurance programs to include birth control — such as the morning after pill or the ella drug that causes an abortion days after conception — in the section of drugs and services insurance plans must cover under “preventative care.” The companies will likely pass the added costs on to consumers, requiring them to pay for birth control and, in some instances, drug-induced abortions of unborn children in their earliest days.

The HHS accepted the IOM guidelines that “require new health insurance plans to cover women’s preventive services” and those services include “FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling” — which include birth control drugs like Plan B and ella that can cause abortions. The Health and Human Services Department commissioned the report from the Institute, which advises the federal government and shut out pro-life groups in meetings leading up to the recommendations.

SOURCE:
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/15/first-lawsuit-from-business-owner-challenges-obama-hhs-mandate/

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Doctor Reminds Crowd Contraceptives Pose Real Medical Dangers


Arland Nichols HS sm
Arland K. Nichols

Dear Friends of Life and Family
  

Not only should Americans be aware of the attack on religious liberty by the Obama administration through the implementation of the HHS contraception mandate, the mandate also attacks women's health by spreading disinformation about the risks associated with contraception use.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendation adopted by HHS makes the claim that for women who use contraception "side effects are generally considered minimal." A sweeping statement such as this warrants detailed argumentation and support; instead, the citation for this statement constitutes three "educational pamphlets" from the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and one other dated study. The public was repeatedly assured that the IOM report was an "exhaustive review of the scientific evidence." Yet one of the primary cruxes of the committee's argument -- and one which directly impacts the health of millions of American women -- is sustained by educational pamphlets (herehere and here) which state at the bottom of each that the information given relies on "opinions on subjects related to women's health," and shockingly that "the average readability level of the series ... is grade 6-8." These promotional brochures do not cite even one scientific study.

Thankfully, many medical professionals have not remained silent about the dangers to women's health being pushed for by the Obama administration. One of those medical professionals is Dr. Bill Mueller.

Dr. Mueller, President of the Catholic Physician Guild of San Antonio and a friend of HLI America, recently spoke at a rally opposing the HHS contraception/abortifacient mandate in which he reminded the crowd about the medical dangers posed to women. The rally was organized by "Faith and Freedom First" outside of the San Fernando Cathedral in San Antonio, Texas on February 18, 2012.

During his speech Dr. Mueller told the crowd:

What you may not already know is that contraception poses real medical dangers, and this is why we all should be concerned. These dangers have been concealed by lies about the safety and necessity of contraception. These lies have misled Americans to believe that pregnancy is a disease. ... As a physician of good conscience, I am here to tell you that contraceptives increase a woman's risk for cancer, strokes, heart attacks, and even death. As a physician of good conscience, I am here to tell you that contraceptives can cause abortions before a woman even knows she is pregnant. As a physician of good conscience, I am here to tell you that women who think contraception will keep them safe in a relationship often end up used, abused and discarded by men who should be upholding the dignity of our sisters in Christ.

Medical journals have for years published study after study that indicates the deleterious side-effects of oral contraception, but none of these studies were cited in the IOM report. Just last year, the FDA announced a safety-review of the most popular oral contraceptives (Yaz, Yasmin, and Beyaz) on the market in response to recent studies that show that these drugs bring a two to three times greater risk of arterial clots compared to the already high risk associated with other forms of oral contraceptives. This review, conducted by the federal government itself, is not even cited by the IOM.

Dr. Mueller deserves great credit for telling the truth about the danger that contraception poses for women's health in a forum where one might not expect to hear that message. I hope that his courage and clarity serves as an example to all physicians, as their leadership and expertise is desperately needed in this struggle. Please share this video (below) with physicians you know and ask that they consider taking a similar stand in support of women's health.

[Watch Dr. Mueller's full speech.]
[Dr. Mueller’s prepared remarks reproduced below]




Good Afternoon!

My name is Dr. Bill Mueller and I am very proud to be representing the Catholic Physicians Guild of San Antonio at this important event! Thank you to the Faith and Freedom Now coalition for organizing this rally and inviting me to speak today.

You already know that the HHS-mandate violates the First Amendment.

You already know that the HHS-mandate is an unjust attempt by the executive branch of the federal government to bypass Congress.

You already know that the HHS-mandate is just one example of how the federal government is imposing controversial medical practices on employers by trying to pass it off as “health care.”

What you may not already know is that contraception poses real medical dangers, and this is why we all should be concerned. These dangers have been concealed by lies about the safety and necessity of contraception. These lies have misled Americans to believe that pregnancy is a disease. Many Americans now believe that taking a “pill,” when you are not sick, is normal, that sex outside of marriage is okay and that young women are somehow “protected” from harm as long as they are “on the pill.” And now Obamacare and the HHS-mandate are attempting to impose access to contraception by trying to call it “standard preventive health care.”

As a physician of good conscience, I am here to tell you that contraceptives increase a woman’s risk for cancer, strokes, heart attacks, and even death. As a physician of good conscience, I am here to tell you that contraceptives can cause abortions before a woman even knows she is pregnant. As a physician of good conscience, I am here to tell you that women who think contraception will keep them safe in a relationship often end up used, abused and discarded by men who should be upholding the dignity of our sisters in Christ.

Now, Obamacare and the HHS-mandate are targeting organizations, companies and insurers who do not comply with deceitful bureaucratic regulations. I believe that Obamacare and the HHS-mandate is the first step in targeting medical professionals and their right to practice medicine according to their moral and ethical beliefs. Indeed, Obamacare and the HHS-mandate are targeting the First Amendment right to freedom of religion and conscience. Rights endowed to us by our Creator.

And so today I urge you to stand up for our Constitution and the divine gift of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to stand up for the First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and conscience; and most importantly, to challenge a government that violates personal freedoms, misrepresents preventive medical services and endangers the viability of organizations that cannot and will not breach their principles.

Finally, I leave you with a quote from Edmond Burke as a reminder of why we must act: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

Thank you all for being here today.

Arland K. Nichols is the National Director of HLI America. He writes for the Truth and Charity Forum.

Become a fan of HLI America on Facebook, subscribe to the Truth & Charity Forum via RSS, and follow HLI America on Twitter.

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Hands Off My Body

Abortion Linked to Breast Cancer (needs formatting)

SOURCE:  http://cjv123.hubpages.com/hub/Have-An-Abortion-GREATLY-Increase-Your-Risk-of-Breast-Cancer

There is a most terrible irony about the pink ribbons everyone sees, football players who wear pink, “pink days” and other “pink” related products that “draw attention” to the cause of eradicating breast cancer. The irony is that there is a direct link between a woman having an abortion and the fact she’ll have a 40% increased chance of having breast cancer.
This is regardless of whether or not the woman has subsequent live births/children which was once thought to be something that could reduce the risk. This isn’t just one study. There are so many that support the direct link between abortions and a greatly increased risk of breast cancer that a microbiologist is going to post each study, one a day, until he has exhausted every single study out there. He estimates he won’t be finished doing this until January 2011.
So why the irony? The Komen Foundation, one of the largest if not the largest fundraiser for breast cancer "research", gives money to Planned Parenthood.
[See links listed at the end of this Hub]
There is absolutely no doubt--if a woman has an abortion it greatly increases her risk for breast cancer. There is incontrovertible evidence that there is a suspected link between breast cancer and abortion.
The Koman foundation admits to funding Planned Parenthood and defends the reasons why.
On the surface, their arguments are sound. They give money to Planned Parenthood to pay “only” for screening for the poor to help prevent breast cancer.
Yet there are two glaring problems with this letter. 1) Planned Parenthood’s greatest money-maker is in providing abortions. What assurance (not provided in this letter) do we have that the money is being used for the things they list and not going towards abortions? They offer nothing. Their promise, that the funds they use is …only for breast health education, screening and treatment programs is insupportable.
2) Unfortunately they actually perpetuate a lie in this same letter. I quote from this lie:
Another piece of misinformation being spread by many who criticize Komen for the Cure for its Planned Parenthood grants is that abortion causes breast cancer. Well conducted research consistently fails to support this claim. We agree with the bulk of scientific evidence – from the National Cancer Institute, Harvard, a rigorous study in Denmark and from Oxford University – that there is no conclusive link between breast cancer and induced abortion or miscarriage.

This is simply not true. There most definitely is very credible evidence and the fact that they deny this is astounding.
Why would it matter anyway - why do they defend abortion if the money they give to Planned Parenthood goes to “only” the limited services Planned Parenthood offers and not abortion? Why bother even addressing this issue in the first place if this money is directed specifically and only for the services they claim are being funded?
If the pro-aborts are all about “choice” then why doesn’t The Komen Foundation give women the choice to know this very important information so that she can make an informed choice? Why does Planned Parenthood deny the increased risk of many more things than breast cancer risk directly related to abortion?
According to the Planned Parenthood website:
Abortion is “safe and effective”. This is from the "teen" Planned Parenthood linked page.
I just had my flu shot at Walgreens. There were signs and notices prominently displayed about the “possible risk” for having one of these shots. Before I was able to receive my shot I had to fill out a sheet of paper and sign that I had been informed about the risks. I can’t have a flu shot without being told repeatedly of the possible risks (far less risky than having an abortion I can guarantee no less the risk of long-term after-affects) yet why is there no such claims on the web site of Planned Parenthood?
How can a procedure where they rip out a live baby from the womb of a woman in pieces -- be boldly called “safe and effective”? How can this be put on the Planned Parenthood website without any disclaimers whatsoever? It's outrageous! Well regardless, your tax dollars pay for it!
One of the more egregious outrages is the fact that not only have so many of us been duped into buying “pink” products, but we have also been giving our tax dollars to fund abortions through Planned Parenthood, and other programs throughout the world. In fact one of the first things President Obama did as President was to repeal the so-called Mexico City rule, which prohibits U.S. aid from being used to fund abortion or abortion-promotion in foreign countries
Now your tax dollars fund Mexican abortions as well as untold secret programs the Obama administration has developed to give your tax dollars for world-wide abortions.
President Obama has the distinction of being the most pro-active, pro-abort President ever to hold the office. This includes his Obama healthcare bill that will - despite his promises and promises by Pelosi, Ried et al - fund abortions using tax payer dollars.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/09/11/obamacare-federal-money-would-fund-abortion/
See also the links provided below.
This is one of the worst insidious evils in our society and it needs to be eradicated. Shine the light of truth on this evil and it will not be able to stand! Think about doing your part, today.
Let’s be a voice to save lives, let’s get the word out. Stop buying anything that is pink and related to these pink breast cancer “awareness” movements. Pass this Hub on, not because I want any personal recognition, but because I want to try and make a difference God willing. My mother is a breast cancer survivor. My treasured sister-in-law lost her mother to breast cancer. Her sister has breast cancer and she has had numerous brushes with this horrible disease. I'm praying for someone in my church who right now has breast cancer, a young, vibrant, absolutely beautiful woman.
Breast cancer is personal to me.
These women didn't have abortions, but what about those who have one without being informed they have a 40% chance of later having breast cancer as a result?
I am passionately pro-life, however, I do not wish to criminalize abortions. I would never condemn anyone for having one. I care about these women. I care enough to want them to be fully informed about the procedure so that they truly have a choice about what they do.
Please think about doing your part today - pass this on.

Other helpful and informational links:

Think before you buy pink: http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/?page_id=13
Tax Dollars used for abortions:
Michelle Malkin » Call your reps: No on Obamacare funds for abortion
Obamacare in fact funds abortions [Fr. Z] - Catholic Answers Forums
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2054293/does_obamacare_fund_abortions_americas.html?cat=75
Susan G. Komen gives millions of donation dollars to Planned Parenthood: http://gerardnadal.com/2010/04/07/susan-g-komen-gives-million-to-planned-parenthood/
http://pinkmoney.org/komen_pp.htm
http://pinkmoney.org/pinkmoney.htm
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/news/061110/index.htm
Links to abortion and breast cancer: http://pinkmoney.org/komen_pp.htm
Direct link to Komen Foundation financial report: http://ww5.komen.org/uploadedFiles/Content/AboutUs/Financial/new-2008-2009AnnualReport-final.pdf
Home page for the Komen Foundation: Susan G. Komen website

Note:
I was forced to remove the photos of aborted babies and frankly, I understand why. It's very interesting to note that the stark, horrific reality of abortion violates the conditions Hubpages places on our Hubs - and they are extremely reasonable conditions, don't get me wrong. Graphic violence can not be depicted. So I do not have an issue with the Hubpages team in any way. I quickly took the photos down once I received the notice.
What I find interesting though is the fact that the realities of "choice"-- the "pro choice" movement etc. -- is that when we show the "fruits" of their labor, aborted babies in pieces, torn limbs, bloody mangled nightmarish images - it's too graphic and violent to show here on Hubpages. Think about that.
One could easily conclude - It's not a "choice" it's the slaughter of a helpless baby.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

ABC - Abortions Linked to Cancer

Links to more info about the PP and ABC (abortion to cancer) link

http://erlc.com/article/the-komen-foundation-and-planned-parenthood/

http://www.lifenews.com/2010/09/21/nat-6718/ 

AbortionBreastCancer.com









Medical Groups Recognizing Link










A list of medical organizations recognizing a link between abortion and
breast cancer is provided below. Telling women their abortions are related
to increased breast cancer risk is clearly not good for cancer fundraising
businesses, the abortion industry and the pharmaceutical industry. Medical
groups whose doctors do not perform abortions or refer women for abortions
will be among the first to recognize that abortion raises a woman's breast
cancer risk.
National Physicians Center for Family Resources
P.O. Box 59692
Birmingham, AL 35259
205/870-0234
www.physicianscenter.org

The National Physicians Center for Family Resources offers a CD intended for parents and health educators which cites "increased breast cancer risk" as a "long-term complication of abortion" and offers a biological explanation for the abortion-breast cancer link. The CD is entitled, "Prescriptions for Parents: A Physicians' Guide to Adolescence and Sex."

Catholic Medical Association
2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, #864
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: 1-877-CATHDOC (877-228-4362)
www.cathmed.org

"Whereas epidemiological evidence of an association between abortion and
breast cancer has existed for almost a half century,

"Whereas 29 our ot 38 worldwide epidemiological studies show an increased
risk of breat cancer of approximately 30% among women who have had an
abortion,

"Whereas all women undergoing abortion are entitled to full informed consent
as to all risks including long term risks,

"Therefore be it resolved that the Catholic Medical Association endorses the
passage of state legislation to require abortionists to inform all women of
their future increased vulnerability to breast cancer."

Resolution Approved 10/15/03

American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists
844 South Washington, Suite 1600
Holland, MI 49423
616-546-2639
www.aaplog.org

AAPLOG has posted a position statement about the ABC link on its website.

Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
9 Vassar St.
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
845/452-0797
www.bcpinstitute.org

The Polycarp Research Institute
2232 Second Avenue
Altoona, PA 16602
www.polycarp.org

Ehtics and Medics
6399 Drexel Road
Philadelphia, PA 19151
www.ethicsandmedics.com
MaterCare International8 Riverview Avenue
St. John's, Newfoundland
Canada A1C 2S5
Phone: 709-579-6472
Fax: 709- 579-6501
E-Mail: info@matercare.org

Statement Concerning the Link between Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer, R. L. Walley. FRCSC., FRCOG., MPH Executive Director and Honourary Research Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

"MaterCare International an international group of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists was presented with the evidence of the link between abortion and breast cancer at its international conference in Rome in October 2004 by Dr Joel Brind's research group.  The medical explanation and the epidemiological evidence convinced our  group that there is a significant increase in breast cancer risk after induced abortion, especially before the first full term pregnancy.  This evidence has been denied by the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) and other researchers.  Recently ten studies have been published in an attempt to discredit Brind's conclusion.

"In turn Brind has examined these ten studies and in a peer reviewed paper published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Vol 10, No 4, Winter 2005, <http://www.jpands.org>) he  has shown that they have serious methodological weaknesses and flaws and therefore do not invalidate the conclusion that there is a increased risk of breast cancer.

"Women have a basic right to know of this increased risk of breast cancer and it is unacceptable that the information should be denied to them by the medical and cancer research  establishments. MaterCare International as an organisation of women's health specialists  recognies its responsibilities in this matter and will do all it can to publish this evidence."
Breast Care Center-EAMC
G/F OPD Bldg East Avenue Medical Center, East Avenue,
Quezon City, Philippines
Phone: (632)-928-0611 loc 578
E-mail: pfbci_bcc@yahoo.com
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/news/Santos/index.htm














Medical Groups Supporting Disclosure of Research











Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
1601 N. Tucson Blvd., Suite 9
Tucson, AZ 85716-3450
520-323-3110

"The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons believes that patients have the right to give or withhold fully informed consent before undergoing medical treatment. This includes notification of potential adverse effects. While there is a difference of medical opinion concerning the abortion breast cancer link, there is a considerable volume of evidence supporting this link, which is, moreover, highly plausible. We believe that a reasonable person would want to be informed of the existence of this evidence before making her decision."

Jane Orient, MD
Executive Director
October 27, 2003

Read Mrs. Malec's article, "The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: How Politics
Trumped Science and Informed Consent," in the Journal of American Physicians
and Surgeons: www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf














Medical Groups in Need of Political Courage











Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
American Medical Association - A spokesman for the AMA told World Net Daily that its group "doesn't have a policy at all" on whether its doctors should inform women about the abortion-breast cancer research. [John Dougherty, "Can doctors be sued over abortion? Those who don't inform patients of breast cancer link could be targets,"
World Net Daily March 27, 2002.
Available at: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26970
Visited October 8, 2003.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
American Society of Breast Surgeons

Miami Breast Cancer Conference

All Cancer Groups
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/newsletter102202.htm
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/050902.htm