North Carolina Right to Life

Annual Pro-Life Events-January 14, 2012-Raleigh, NC

2011-11-28T12:53:00.001-05:00

North Carolina Right to Life, Inc.

13th Annual Prayer Breakfast for Life

January 14, 2012

North Raleigh Hilton

3415 Wake Forest Road Raleigh, NC

(Breakfast begins at 9:30 a.m. - Program 10:00 a.m.)

The cost for the breakfast is $25/person, $40/married couple, $20/students, clergy, and seniors. Payment can be made using MC/VISA/DISCOVER/Check. Call 800-392-6275 to register by phone using MC, VISA or Discover. Mail checks to NCRTL, PO Box 9282, Greensboro, N. C. 27429-0282. After January 11, 2011, the price WILL go up $5. Sponsorships are available. (Click here for the form.)

2012 Annual Rally and March for Life

begins at 1:00 pm

Nash Square

(corner of Hargett and McDowell Streets, Raleigh, NC)

Join other pro-lifers to stand up for life and to display proudly your

church or school banner in support of life. The Most Rev. Michael F. Burbidge, Bishop of the Diocese of Raleigh, will give remarks and the Invocation. Christina Geradts, a student at UNC-CH and a graduate of the NRL Academy, and Teresa Pincus, a student at NCSU, will speak.

Randall K. O’ Bannon, Ph. D., the Director of Education and Research at National Right to Life will be the featured speaker at the Prayer Breakfast. Dr. O’ Bannon is an expert on the funding and activities of Planned Parenthood, having tracked the organization for over 20 years. Additionally, Dr. O’ Bannon has written dozens of stories and blog entries and produced numerous fact sheets about Planned Parenthood to highlight its being the country’s largest abortion provider, aborting 332,278 babies in 2009. He is also an expert on the chemical abortion RU-486. In addition to having been interviewed by the national press. Dr. O’ Bannon has worked on such notable projects as the award winning video, Infinite Possibilities.

Carol Tobias, the featured speaker at the Rally, became the 9th president of the National Right to Life Committee in April 2011. A native of North Dakota, she has served on the National Right to Life board of directors since 1987. From 1983 to 1991, she was executive director of North Dakota Right to Life and in 1991 was hired as National Right to Life Political Director, a position she held until 2005. During her tenure as political director, pro-life majorities were elected to both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. In both 2000 and 2004, she oversaw the efforts of National Right to Life’s political action committee on behalf of George W. Bush.

She has appeared on ABC’s World News Tonight, NBC’s Today Show, CNN, The News Hour on PBS, C-SPAN, and Fox News Channel, as well as numerous television and radio programs throughout the country. She has been quoted in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today.

For More Information, call: NCRTL at 1-800-392-6275

Judge Enjoins Ultrasound Portion of NC Woman's Right to Know Law

2011-10-25T23:25:00.000-04:00

DISTRICT JUDGE ENJOINS ULTRASOUND REQUIREMENT IN NORTH CAROLINA

Other life-saving provisions of Woman's Right to Know law take effect tomorrow.

GREENSBORO, N.C. – Today, U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles issued a ruling enjoining the "Right to View" provision of North Carolina's "Woman's Right to Know" law from taking effect. The remaining provisions of the law will take effect tomorrow. The law was enacted in July over Governor Beverly Perdue's veto and requires that mothers seeking abortion be given information about the abortion and that a real-time ultrasound image of her unborn child be displayed so that she may view the image before the abortion can be performed.

“While we are happy that most of the provisions of the Woman's Right to Know law will go into effect tomorrow, it is extremely regrettable that mothers will be unable to see real-time images of their unborn children kicking and moving inside the womb and hear their children's heartbeat," said Barbara Holt, president of North Carolina Right to Life.

Enacted by a bi-partisan override of Governor Perdue's July veto, the informed consent law provides that a booklet containing scientifically accurate information about risks, alternatives and information on the development of the unborn child, compiled by the Department of Health and Human Services, be offered to the mother at least 24 hours prior to an abortion so that she might have the opportunity to read and understand the information. The provision enjoined by Judge Eagles requires that an ultrasound image of the unborn child be displayed at least four hours prior to an abortion so that the mother might view it and that she be given the opportunity to hear the unborn child's heartbeat.

"There are numerous precedents which impact other aspects of people's lives where laws require information be provided, and in many cases displayed and orally described," noted Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D., director of state legislation for the National Right to Life Committee. "Displaying the ultrasound image, and orally describing what the screen depicts, gives mothers another piece they need to make a more informed decision and reduce the chance that she will make a decision based on an incomplete understanding of the full dimensions of her decision, which might later produce terrible remorse."

"We are confident that the Court, upon further review, will ultimately allow the ultrasound provision to take effect giving North Carolina mothers the opportunity to witness their living unborn children in the womb," Mrs. Holt added.

(Source: Joint Press Release by National Right to Life and its state affiliate, North Carolina Right to Life Inc.)

NC Right to Life Fair Booth at NC State Fair Draws Positive Comments

2011-10-18T14:00:00.002-04:00

Each October, North Carolina Right to Life (NCRTL) proudly sets up its exhibit at the NC State Fair in the Education Building. Over 100 pro-lifers volunteer their time and talent to man a shift (sometimes several) at the NCRTL booth. Not only is the booth a blessing to those who visit it but to the volunteers too.

Yesterday, one of the volunteers told us how touched she was by the man who stopped by to offer a pro-life poem and by another woman who came by to share her regret for the 2 abortions that she had. This post abortive mother said that there was not one day that went by that she does not regret her decision to abort her children. According to this volunteer, the majority of comments have been positive, with only about 1/2% negative; those folks make their comments and then leave. This volunteer thanked NC Right to Life for the opportunity to work the booth.

Thousands of fair goers stop by our booth to sign our petition, view the award winning video about life, make donations for bumper sitckers, magnets, precious feet pins, etc. and get information about abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia/assisted suicide. Each person who visits the booth receives a sticker which says, "Thanks Mom for Life." Many are returning visitors to the booth, who are looking for a new petition to sign and new materials to pick up.

If you have not yet made your trip to the NC State Fair, it is not too late. The fair closes on Sunday, October 23. Senior Citizens get into the fair free of charge. Be sure to stop by our booth in the Education Building (located at the corner of Blue Ridge and Hillsborough Street by the electronic fair sign) to sign our petition and check out all the pro-life materials.

The Abortion Industry Wants to Deny Mothers Considering Abortion the Facts They Need to Make a Truly Informed Decision

2011-09-29T21:34:00.000-04:00

On September 29, 2011, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood of Central Carolina, and various abortionists filed a suit against North Carolina’s recently enacted Woman’s Right to Know law. The law, supported by the majority of North Carolinians and more importantly by mothers who have been harmed by the lack of information received prior to having an abortion, would have taken effect beginning on October 1, 2011.

“When a mother's decision involves the life or death of her unborn child, she needs more, not less information. North Carolina's Woman's Right to Know law ensures she gets the scientific facts about her unborn child when deciding whether or not to have an abortion," stated Barbara Holt, President of North Carolina Right to Life. "Mothers, not abortionists, should be the ones deciding whether to view the ultrasound image and to hear the heart tone of their unborn children."

The law requires abortionists to turn the ultrasound image toward the mother, but does not require her to look at the image. The description of the image is supposed to be scientifically accurate and consistent with what the image shows. The abortionist must offer the mother the opportunity to hear the heart tone of her unborn child but does not force her to listen to it. Only the abortion industry would oppose giving mothers all the facts to make this life and death decision for their unborn children.

Republican Controlled General Assembly Concludes Historic Legislative Session

2011-08-02T17:30:00.002-04:00

In an historic legislative session, the Republican controlled State House and Senate passed a record number of pro-life laws:

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act/Ethen's Law, H215, mirrors the federal law so that the unborn child is recognized a second victim when a crime is committed.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H215&submitButton=Go

The Authorize Various Special Plates, H289, includes the Choose Life Plate. The bill requires that the words North Carolina which appear at the bottom of the plate and the background for the numbers will have to be reflective white. The new law requires that in 2015, the full color plate becomes a "First in Flight" plate with a logo to the left representing the special plate. Of course, prior to 2015, the legislature can amend the law to allow the full color plates to continue.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H289&submitButton=Go

Using the budget as its vehicle, the legislature repealed the Abortion Fund which had been amended in 1995 limiting abortion coverage to $50,000 for the reasons of life of the mother, rape, and incest. Since the funds have not been used since 1995, the legislature eliminated the provision entirely. Secondly, the legislature included a provision in the budget that states: "No state funds may be used for the performance of abortions or to support the administration of any governmental health plan or government-offered insurance policy offering abortion, except that this prohibition shall not apply where (i) the life of the mother would be endangered if the unborn child were carried to term or (ii) the pregnancy is the result of a rape or incest. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit medical care provided after a spontaneous miscarriage." Finally, the legislature included a provision in the budget that de-funds Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood has filed a lawsuit against the state to restore these funds. (See the news story about the suit which includes a quote by Barbara Holt:click here.) The Budget was vetoed by the Governor but overridden by the legislature with 5 House Democrats joining Republicans in the House and Senate voting for the override. The 5 House Democrats are Reps. William Brisson, Jim Crawford, Dewey Hill, Bill Owens, and Tim Spear.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H200&submitButton=Go

The Abortion-Woman's Right to Know Act, H854, is the most recently passed law; it was the top priority for North Carolina Right to Life. The Abortion-Woman's Right to Know Act, H854, passed the NC House June 8, 71-48, and the NC Senate on June 15, by a vote of 29-20, one vote short of the necessary votes to override the expected Governor's veto. On June 27, Governor Beverly Perdue vetoed the bill. (Click here for WRAL article on the veto; click here for another article with audio of Ruth Samuelson on the veto.) Following Perdue's veto and during the special session on redistricting, both the chambers took up the veto override. On July 26, the NC House overrode the Governor's veto, 72-47, with all Republicans and 4 Democrats voting for the bill, Reps. William Brisson, Jim Crawford, Dewey Hill, and Tim Spear. Two days later on July 28, the NC Senate voted in favor of the bill, 29-19, with Republican Senators Stan Bingham and Richard Stevens absent. (Senator Stan Bingham explains not voting on the override of Governor's veto of the Abortion-Woman's Right to Know.) The bill became law by the exact number of votes needed to override the Governor's veto of the bill.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H200&submitButton=Go

ACTION NEEDED:

Please thank your representative and senator if he or she voted for anyone of these bills. They need to be acknowledged for their support. We especially want you to thank them for supporting the Woman's Right to Know.

Also, put in your application to get a Choose Life Special Plate for your car and help support the agencies that help mothers who are choosing life for their unborn children. To get an application for the plate, click here.

2011-07-29T11:34:00.000-04:00

State Senate Joins House in Overriding

Governor's Veto of the

Abortion-Woman's Right to Know

Greensboro,NC- Today, North Carolina Right to Life, the state's largest and oldest right-to-life organization applauded the members of the North Carolina Senate for overriding Governor Beverly Perdue's veto of the Woman's Right to Know Act, H854, by a vote of 29-19. On July 25, the North Carolina House overrode the the Governor's veto, 72-47. Governor Perdue vetoed the legislation on June 27.

North Carolina becomes the 26th state to have a Woman's Right to Know law consistent with the findings in the U. S. Supreme Court decision of 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

"At long last, North Carolina has taken the necessary steps to ensure that mothers receive the factual, non judgmental, and scientifically accurate information they need to make an informed decision about a procedure that means life or death for their unborn children." stated Barbara Holt, President of North Carolina Right to Life. "Many unborn children's lives will be saved and their mothers will be spared much heartache when the law takes effect later this year."

North Carolina will join the other southern states that have this legislation. Both the Senate and House can be proud of their votes to override the Governor's veto. They represented the people of the state who support the legislation. The Civitas Institute recently reported the results of a poll about the bill, showing that 56% of the voters of the state support the bill while only 36% oppose it.

North Carolina Right to Life, the state affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee, is the oldest and largest single issue organization in the state serving all of North Carolina.

State House Overrides Governor's Veto, 72-47

2011-07-26T22:19:00.000-04:00

Greensboro,NC- Today, North Carolina Right to Life, the state's largest and oldest right-to-life organization applauded members of the North Carolina House of Representatives for overriding Governor Beverly Perdue's veto of the Woman's Right to Know Act, H854. The House voted, 72-47, to override the Governor's veto; the Senate is expected to take up their veto override soon. Governor Perdue vetoed the legislation on June 27.

This historic vote puts NC one step closer to being the 26th state to have a Woman's Right to Know law consistent with the findings in the U. S. Supreme Court decision of 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

"This vote was a bipartisan vote to ensure that mothers receive the factual, non judgmental and complete information they need to make informed abortion decision affecting their unborn children," stated Barbara Holt, President of North Carolina Right to Life. "Many unborn children's lives will be saved and their mothers will be spared much heartache when the legislature completes its work of overriding the Governor's veto."

The House listened to the voices of the majority of the people of the state who support the legislation. The Civitas Institute recently reported the results of a poll about the bill, showing that 56% of the voters of the state support the bill while only 36% oppose it.

North Carolina Right to Life, the state affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee, is the oldest and largest single issue organization in the state serving all of North Carolina.

Q & A with Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D. about Planned Parenthood

2011-07-02T12:40:00.002-04:00

Ignore Misleading Figures, Planned Parenthood Is “Big Abortion”

NRL NEWS Editor’s note. Whenever questioned about the hundreds of millions the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) receives every year in government funding, PPFA ducks, bobs, and weaves. At the top of its evasions is a multi-fold defense that attempts to demonstrate that abortion is a small part of what it does, bringing in barely enough to pay the utilities. Is this plausible? To those who don’t have the opportunity to closely follow the money and statistical trails, yes. But are they true? No! Contrary to the official PPFA line, its abortion connection has, if anything, been underplayed. For an explanation we turn to Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., National Right to Life’s resident expert on Planned Parenthood. Dr. O’Bannon has tracked the activities of PPFA and its affiliates for us for over 20 years and has written dozens and dozens of stories and blog entries about the country’s largest abortion provider, which aborted 332,278 babies in 2009.

NRL News: Let’s start with this claim that abortion represents “only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services,” the single most common PPFA defense. Where does this come from and is it in any sense true?

Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D.: If you were PPFA, above all you want people’s eyes distracted from the 330,000+ abortions you perform a year. How could you minimize its prevalence and its importance to your bottom line? (This is complicated, so please bear with me.)

By bundling services when it serves your purpose, and unbundling when it makes you look better. It arrives at this 3% figure by using some very strained mathematics, by counting everything given to, or done for, a given patient as a separate service. So if a young mom comes into a Planned Parenthood clinic for an abortion, she’ll probably also have a pregnancy test, maybe a test for an STD, and then may receive a packet of birth control pills after her abortion. So, is that one “service” or four? Planned Parenthood counts each of these as a separate service.

Moreover, this same woman coming in for an abortion may receive three, four, or more additional services, such as an ultrasound, an antibiotic, and an Rh type and hemoglobin test, all connected to her abortion visit. When counted separately, it makes it look like abortion was only one among several other more conventional “reproductive health care” services or procedures. [See PPFA’s 3/11 fact sheet on services at www.plannedparenthood.org/file/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf.]

PPFA offers the “3% of services” mantra day in and day out. It is accepted uncritically by the media. The figure is purposefully confusing. A much more understandable—and accurate—measure is to look at the numbers of clients, rather than the number of “services.” That tells a very different story.

Outside of places like National Right to Life News and NRL News Today, you virtually never read that the percentage of PPFA’s clients that receive abortions is 12%. As we shall see in a moment, that is important not only because it reveals its enormous investment in abortion, but also because abortions generate a hefty share of clinic revenue.

NRL News: So, to be clear, that means that nearly one in eight women walking through the door of a Planned Parenthood clinic receiving services has an abortion?

O’Bannon: Well, even that probably understates the abortion-related traffic to Planned Parenthood. In 2009 over 1.1 million women coming to Planned Parenthood had a pregnancy test. We don’t know what percentage of those were positive. What we do know is that of the services Planned Parenthood reported that would have involved pregnant women (abortion, prenatal care, adoption referrals), 97.6% were abortion.

On the PPFA Services fact sheet, Planned Parenthood says it provided services for three million people in 2009. That would mean roughly a third were tested for pregnancy. Considering how a woman can buy a relatively inexpensive pregnancy test from her local drug or grocery store, she must have had a reason to seek out Planned Parenthood. If the availability of abortion was the reason, that would mean that abortion was pulling in even more than the 12%.

NRL News: Even so, 12% of the business being devoted to abortion would be a significant percentage, would it not?

O’Bannon: That it would be. But to reiterate, abortion certainly accounts for a great deal more than just 12% as a portion of PPFA’s business, especially if you’re looking at it in monetary terms.

To see how significant abortion is to Planned Parenthood’s bottom line, there is no equivalency between a $15 pregnancy test or a $6 pack of condoms or $15–$50 packet of birth control pills and an abortion which runs $350–$950 for a first-trimester abortion [seewww.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures-4359.asp].

Here’s some very basic math. At $451 (the Guttmacher Institute’s estimated average cost for a standard first-trimester surgical abortion), the 332,278 abortions Planned Parenthood performed in 2009 would represent $149.9 million—37% of the $404.9 million in clinic revenues PPFA took in for the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2009 [see PPFA 2008–09 Annual Report atwww.plannedparenthood.org].

NRL News: That’s a far cry from the 3% we started with.

O’Bannon: And since Planned Parenthood clinics also advertise and perform more expensive chemical abortions, like those with RU486, and later surgical abortions, which average more than $1,500 at 20 weeks, that income and that percentage are probably much higher. One thing is clear from the data we have, data that comes from Planned Parenthood itself. In spite of the spin and the deflections, Planned Parenthood certainly is “Big Abortion”-- the nation’s biggest performer and most aggressive promoter of abortion.

NRL News: We know we have to be 100% accurate or the 99% that is correct gets tossed away. What are some common mistakes with regard to the data?

O’Bannon: Speaking in terms of Planned Parenthood’s “profits” instead of “revenues.” Another is to confuse its clinic or “health center income” with the total revenues of the organization. Planned Parenthood had total revenues of $1.1 billion in FY 2009, but only 37% of that came from clinic income. It got another $363.3 million in “government grants and contracts” and private contributions totaling $308.2 million, and another $24.5 million from other sources.

One thing people also need to do is to be specific. Don’t say that 90% of Planned Parenthood’s patients have abortions, because that isn’t correct. What is true is that in looking at those services intrinsically connected to pregnancy—abortion, prenatal care, and adoption—97.6% of those were abortion.

NRL News: Anything else you want to say about this 3% claim that Planned Parenthood has popularized?

O’Bannon: If I may, let me briefly mention three other related issues. First, PPFA is building up its abortion business in a major way (see the editorial on page 2). This is 180 degrees away from the organization’s attempt to act as if abortion is incidental to what it does.

Second—to borrow from the article I wrote that appears on page z—a secondary Planned Parenthood tactic is to argue that increased funding will enable it to reduce the numbers of abortions, but its own organizational reports don’t seem to show that.

The revenue Planned Parenthood receives in “Government Grants & Contracts” has gone from $165 million in 1998 to $363.3 million in the organization’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2009. During the same time, and at roughly the same rate, abortions have more than doubled at Planned Parenthood, from 165,509 in 1998 to 332,278 in 2009. All this while abortions in the U.S., as a whole, dropped by about 25%. To say that Planned Parenthood is committed to reducing abortions is to go against decades of evidence that shows the exact opposite.

Third, to return to the original question, we’ve shown that PPFA is heavily invested in—and derives enormous income from—abortion.

But even if abortion constituted “only” 3% of its business—which masks the truth—this organization boldly and unapologetically destroys over 300,000 innocent human lives every year, making millions in the process, and unapologetically defends its doing so.

This is not only an absolute corruption of the very notion of “health care,” it is a gross abuse of our most basic human rights, something that no civilized society should tolerate, much less pay for.

[SOURCE: NRL News, Page 10, April/May 2011, Volume 38, Issue 4-5]

Shame on you, Governor Perdue, for Vetoing the Abortion-Woman's Right to Know Act

2011-06-28T20:25:00.002-04:00

North Carolina Right to Life Expresses Strong Disapproval at Governor Perdue’s Veto of Woman’s Right to Know Bill

Greensboro, NC – (June 27, 2011) North Carolina Right to Life, the state affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), expresses strong disapproval at Governor Perdue’s veto of H854, the Abortion - Woman’s Right to Know bill, which would have ensured that women seeking abortions are given non-judgmental, scientifically accurate information about their developing unborn child prior to obtaining an abortion.

“I would like to express publically my disappointment that Governor Purdue has chosen to override the express will of the people and their elected representatives by vetoing this bill,” stated Barbara Holt, President of North Carolina Right to Life. “While our elected representatives courageously voted to give women real choice and their unborn babies a chance at life, Governor Purdue has cowardly catered to the powerful pro-abortion lobby in vetoing this bill. It is an unspeakable tragedy that thousands of innocent young lives will be lost and women’s lives irreversibly shattered simply because they never had the opportunity to view an ultrasound of their unborn baby or be given scientifically accurate information about him or her,” she added.

The bill passed the NC House by 71 to 48 and 29 to 20 in the NC Senate. North Carolina would have joined twenty – five (25) other states with similar informed consent laws for abortion. The law would have required that every mother be given an opportunity to view an ultrasound of her unborn child prior to an abortion. It also would have required the state to create a website where mothers can learn mre about the development of their unborn children, alternatives to abortion, and a list of places where they can obtain a free ultrasound.

North Carolina Right to Life is the state affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the nation’s largest single issue pro-life group. North Carolina Right to Life works through education and legislation to protect those threatened by abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, and assisted suicide.

LINKS to news stories about Perdue's veto:
News and Observer
News Story on ABC Local
LifeNews

Session Ends with Passage of Pro-Life Bills

2011-06-19T14:30:00.002-04:00

The North Carolina House adjourned on Saturday, June 18, after passing Rep. Mitch Gillespie's "Choose Life" License Plate bill H289, "Authorize Various Plates." This bill was the last of the several pro-life bills supported by North Carolina Right to Life to get through the legislature in the waning days before adjournment.

The "Choose Life" plate was attacked by amendments offered by both House and Senate Democrats who wanted to keep the plate from being offered by the NCDMV. Democrats in both chambers offered an amendment to include a "Trust Women..Respect Choice" plate in Rep. Gillespie's bill with the proceeds from the sale of the plate going to Planned Parenthood. These amendments in addition to other gutting amendments offered by the Democrats failed.

There was one amendment in Senate Finance that almost derailed the the bill because it would have prohibited full color license plates. While the amendment did pass the Finance Committee and the bill passed the Senate 41-9, the House voted 108-0 not to concur. The negotiations that followed between Rep.Mitch Gillespie (R-McDowell) and Senator Bob Rucho (R-Mechlenburg), brought a compromise that allows the Choose Life plate to have its special full color plate design until 2015. The compromise passed the Senate 29-11 at 12:56 AM on June 18 before the Senate adjourned, and then passed the House 68-44 at 11:42 AM just before it adjourned.

The bill also provides for a study committee:

"The Department of Crime Control and Public Safety and the Department of Transportation shall study whether, for purposes of effective law enforcement, full-color special license plates should continue to be authorized or be phased out, with all special license plates being on the First in Flight background. The study shall also include an estimate of the replacement costs and recommendations for funding those costs.

The Departments shall report their findings and make recommendations to the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee on or before the convening of the 2012 Regular Session of the 2011 General Assembly. The Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee shall make any legislative recommendations based on the study to the 2012 Regular Session of the 2011 General Assembly."

Based on the recommendations of the study committee, the phase out of the full color plates could be repealed, allowing the plates to remain full color for those which qualify by statute.

Earlier in the week, on Wednesday, June 15, the Senate Rules Committee passed the Abortion-Woman's Right to Know Act along party lines, allowing the bill to go straight to the Senate floor on the supplemental calendar for that day. Just as in the House, Democrat legislators spoke against the bill. All Democrats and one of the Republicans, Senator Stan Bingham (Davidson), voted against the bill. Senator Richard Stevens (R-Wake) did not vote.

The bill passed its second reading (29-20) and third reading on a voice vote without a single amendment being offered. It was ratified on June 16; then, presented to the Governor on June 17. Governor Beverly Perdue has 10 days to either sign or veto the bill. If she does neither, the bill will become law automatically after 10 days.

ACTION REQUIRED:

Call Governor Perdue at 1-919-733-4240 to ask her to allow the Abortion-Woman's Right to Know to become law.

When the person answers the phone, say that the voice mail is full and you would like to leave a message.

Then say, "I strongly support the Abortion-Woman's Right to Know H854 and ask the Governor to allow the bill to become law."

Be sure to give your name. Pass the word to all your pro-life family and friends.

RESOURCES:

H854 Abortion Woman's Right to Know

H289 Authorize Various Plates

NC House Committees Hear Testimony on the Abortion Woman's Right to Know.

2011-05-07T14:11:00.014-04:00

The NC House Judiciary B Committee heard testimony Thursday, May 4, on the Abortion-Woman's Right to Know (A-WRTK), H854. Reps. Ruth Samuelson and Pat McElraft, the bill's primary sponsors, spoke first. Because of the need to be in another committee meeting, Rep. McElraft spoke briefly at the beginning. Then, Rep. Samuelson thoroughly explained the bill prior the testimony of those who support and oppose the legislation. The committee Chair, Rep. Stevens, alternated the testimony between those who oppose the bill with those who support the bill.

Those speaking against the bill were Janet Colm, the President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina; Sarah Preston, lobbyist for the ACLU; David Grimes, a Clinical Professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine; and Erica Pedigrew, a fifth year medical student at UNC-CH.

Speaking in support of the bill were: Barbara Holt, President of North Carolina Right to Life; Monsignor David Brockman, Vicar General of the Catholic Diocese of Raleigh; Sara Riggins, representing NC Family Policy Council; Rev. Mark Creech, Executive Director of the Christian Action League; Danelle Hallenbeck, post abortive mother and former Leader of Operation Outcry in NC; and Betty Rogosich, CEO of Birth Choice serving Eastern NC.

To watch the WRAL video of the proceedings, click here. Before the discussion of the A-WRTK, there were about 40 minutes of discussion on two different bill. Move the bar to advance to the A-WRTK discussion unless you wish to hear everything discussed in the meeting.

The House Judiciary Sub Committee B met for a second time on May 11, with the entire two hour meeting devoted to the Abortion-Woman's Right to Know bill. The first hour was devoted to hearing testimony from both sides with each side having 25 minutes. The last hour of the meeting was devoted to discussion of the bill by the committee with a vote on the bill as the final action. For the most part, those members of the committee who opposed or supported the bill made statements about the bill. The bill passed the committee along party lines with Rep. Grier Martin not casting a vote because he was called away to another committee at which one of his bills was being considered.

You can watch the video of the meeting here.

The bill was assigned to Appropriations Sub Committee on Health and Human Services which heard the bill on May 19. There were no amendments offered and the bill passed the committee after legislators spoke both in favor and opposition to the bill.

To read Barbara Holt's prepared remarks from May 4, which had to be limited due to time constraints because of the large number of individuals giving testimony, click here.

To read other posts about the Abortion-Woman's Right to Know, H854, click here.

RESOURCES:

Death Associated with Abortion Compared to Childbirth

Deaths Associated with Pregnancy Outcome
Abortion is Four Times Deadlier than Childbirth

Barbara Holt's Prepared Testimony at May 4 House Judiciary B Subcommittee in Favor of the Abortion-Woman's Right to Know

2011-05-07T13:48:00.000-04:00

Thank you Reps. Stam and Stevens and members of the committee for this opportunity to speak to you about why you should support the Abortion-Woman’s Right to Know.

This legislation does not prevent a woman from having an abortion, but rather ensures that she receives all the information she needs for making an informed decision. Members of this committee who consider themselves pro-choice should support the legislation for that reason alone.

On the other hand, speaking for North Carolina Right to Life and the many hundreds of thousands of pro-life citizens of this state, we support the bill because most women are seeking the information provided by this legislation in order to choose to bring their babies into the world rather than to abort them. They are looking for a reason not to have an abortion. This legislation ensures that they will receive the information they desire so they can make a life affirming decision for themselves and their children.

In his research findings, David Reardon, Ph. D., states, “approximately 40 percent of post-aborted women were still hoping to discover some alternative to abortion when going for counseling at the abortion clinic; over 80 percent say they would have carried to term under better circumstances or with the support of loved ones; between 30 and 60 percent of women having abortions have a positive desire to carry the pregnancy to term and keep their babies; approximately 70 percent of women seeking abortions have a negative moral view of abortion and are choosing against their consciences because of outside pressures; over two-thirds of women seeking abortions feel they have "no choice" or are "forced" to have the abortion by others or circumstances” [Source: Zimmerman, Passage Through Abortion (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1977) 69, 110-12, 120, 193; Reardon Aborted Women - Silent No More (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987, 9-15, 41-64.)]

He further states, “Indeed, it is quite possible that the majority of women seeking abortions, if given a free and informed opportunity, would decide that childbirth is clearly healthier than abortion.”

[Source: http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V2/n2/

INCONSNT.htm]

As of July 2010, according to National Right to Life, there are 25 states which have similar Casey style Women’s Right to Know statutes, that provide printed information for making an abortion decision. 24 of the 25 are currently in effect. Montana is the only state whose statute has been permanently enjoined. Wisconsin and Alabama have laws which are deficient because of the weakness of their medical emergency language. North Carolina and Tennessee are the only two southern states without a Woman’s Right to Know law.

In the 1992 U. S. Supreme Court decision of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court upheld Pennsylvania’s Informed Consent law. The court stated: “It cannot be questioned that psychological well-being is a facet of health. Nor can it be doubted that most women considering an abortion would deem the impact on the fetus relevant, if not dispositive, to the decision.... [This information] furthers the legitimate purpose of reducing the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision was not fully informed.”

This informed consent bill poses the fundamental question: When a pregnant woman is faced with a life and death decision, can the state require her doctor to display an ultrasound image? As stated earlier, abortion jurisprudence dealing with informed consent legislation is currently controlled by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). Applying the holding in that case to the ultrasound provision in the bill we are discussing today, the answer is that the state can require the ultrasound to be displayed.

The United States Supreme Court plurality opinion in Casey, at 873, stated:

“Though the woman has a right to choose to terminate or continue her pregnancy before viability, it does not at all follow that the State is prohibited from taking steps to ensure that this choice is thoughtful and informed. Even in the earliest stages of pregnancy, the State may enact rules and regulations designed to encourage her to know that there are philosophic and social arguments of great weight that can be brought to bear in favor of continuing the pregnancy to full term, and that there are procedures and institutions to allow adoption of unwanted children as well as a certain degree of state assistance if the mother chooses to raise the child herself. '[T]he Constitution does not forbid a State or city, pursuant to democratic processes, from expressing a preference for normal childbirth.'"

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. at 511 (opinion of the Court) (quoting Poelker v. Doe, 432 U.S. 519, 521, 53 L. Ed. 2d 528, 97 S. Ct. 2391 (1977)). “It follows that States are free to enact laws to provide a reasonable framework for a woman to make a decision that has such profound and lasting meaning. This, too, we find consistent with Roe's central premises, and indeed the inevitable consequence of our holding that the State has an interest in protecting the life of the unborn.”

Americans overwhelmingly support the right of women to receive information about fetal development and alternatives with a 24 hour period of reflection. In a national CNN/USA/Today/Gallup Poll (January 10-12, 2003), 88% of Americans said they favored a law requiring doctors to inform patients about alternatives before performing the abortion procedure (only 11% opposed).

According to the same poll, 78 percent of Americans favored a law requiring women seeking abortions to wait 24 hours before having the procedure done (19% opposed).

Similarly, in a Harris Poll (December 10-12, 2008), “88 percent favor informed consent laws that provide women with information about abortion’s risks and alternatives beforehand”

In conclusion, the Abortion – Woman’s Right to Know is not an attack on a personal freedom, but a guarantee of it. It is constitutionally and legally sound. It safeguards a woman's right to know and to make informed decisions, helps protect physicians from lawsuits, and is a reasoned and compassionate response to the needs of concerned pregnant women.

NC House Proposed Budget Defunds Planned Parenthood and Limits Abortion Funding

2011-04-29T23:31:00.003-04:00

UPDATE:

The NC House passed the budget on a veto proof majority of 72-47. There were three provisions of particular interest to pro-lifers that withstood the efforts to amend them: the Repeal of the Abortion Fund, the prohibition of abortion in the administration of a governmental health plan or government offered insurance policy, and the de-funding of Planned Parenthood.

The amendments that were offered to amend these provisions were numbers 17, 19, 20, and 21. To see all the votes and the exact wording of the amendments, click here. To see all the votes, be sure to click the tab reading " View All Votes" on the "Vote History" box. Read the earlier post below.

Approximately ten Planned Parenthood supporters attended the House Appropriations meeting on April 27 sporting pink tee shirts. Others, including a couple of the representatives on the committee, wore stickers saying, “I stand with Planned Parenthood.” They are upset because there is a section in the proposed budget that defunds Planned Parenthood. Inc. and its affiliate organizations.

During the day long meeting comprised of explanations and amendments, Rep.Verla Insko (D-Orange) offered two amendments aimed at restoring the funding to Planned Parenthood. The first amendment was to restore all funding, while the second aimed at allowing Planned Parenthood to receive funds that come to them through the state from other funding sources.

Both of the amendments failed. The first vote was a recorded vote; 37 voted to restore the funding to Planned Parenthood while 51 voted to keep the section which defunds Planned Parenthood. The vote was mainly along party lines.

Rep. Insko defended her attempts to restore the funding by saying that Planned Parenthood provides family planning and contraceptive services to 25,000 women and to some men. She did not mention the abortion and abortion referral services that Planned Parenthood provides.

The Daily Tarheel quoted Paige Johnson, lobbyist for Planned Parenthood Central North Carolina, saying, “Losing funding would disproportionately affect low income women who rely on Planned Parenthood for services like mammograms and birth control” ¹ According to the web site operated by Planned Parenthood Health Systems, Inc. none of the nine Planned Parenthood Health Centers in NC do mammograms, all nine web sites say they provide “mammogram referrals”²

Each of the nine Planned Parenthood Health Centers in Asheville, Chapel Hill, Charlotte, Durham, Fayetteville, Greensboro, Raleigh, Wilmington and Winston Salem charge for their services, take insurance including Medicaid, and expect payment at the time of service unless other arrangements have been made. They discount some services, but not abortion services or HPV vaccines, by 50% for those under 18.

Five (Chapel Hill, Durham, Fayetteville, Wilmington, and Winston Salem) provide abortion services. Chapel Hill provides full abortion services, including the chemical abortion RU-486, up to 20 weeks lmp; Fayetteville, up to 14 weeks lmp; Wilmington, up to 13.6 lmp; and Winston Salem, up to 16 weeks lmp. (Note: NC requires abortions after 20 weeks or more to be performed in licensed hospitals.)

The cost varies from $400 for the chemical abortion; $330 for an abortion up to 12 weeks lmp; $975-1025 for an abortion 17-18 weeks lmp; and $1525 for an abortion up to 19 weeks lmp. These charges do not include IV medication, $100; ultrasound, $116-175; medication for RH negative, $33-103, or follow up for the chemical abortion if over a month after the initial visit, $170-200. ³

Additionally, they charge $30 for a required surgical procedure within a month of the chemical abortion or $55 if the surgical abortion occurs after 1 month. These charges substantiate the claim that the RU-486 chemical abortion does not always result in the complete expulsion of the dead unborn child and a surgical abortion is later needed to complete the abortion..

The web site for the Chapel Hill Health Center furthers says, “We have funding which allows us to offer large discounts on abortion services to those who qualify based on their income and family size.”³ Since this center is located near the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, one would assume that these discounts would be offered to students who can not include their parent’s income as their own and would therefore qualify for a discount based on their income.

In response to remarks made by Rep. Alma Adams (D-Guilford) in favor of restoring the funding, Rep. Paul Stam (R-Wake) pointed out Planned Parenthood’s ties to its founder Margaret Sanger’s well established support of eugenics and the part her views still play in how Planned Parenthood operates and what its mission is. Rep. Stam also made references to how North Carolina has had to deal with its own past attempts at eugenics. He reminded Rep. Adams that he had sent her a book about this eugenics connection because of her close association with Planned Parenthood.

Rep. Stam did not mention the name of the book he sent to Rep. Adams, but this author suspects it might be “Margaret Sanger’s Eugenics Legacy: The control of Female Fertility” by Angela Franks, Ph. D. Dr. Franks spoke at a Prayer Breakfast sponsored by North Carolina Right to Life in 2010 in Raleigh. Her web site says her book is “a meticulously researched and carefully referenced work on the history and ideology of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood.”⁴

Two other budget items of interest to North Carolina Right to Life and pro-lifers in general are the Repeal of the State Abortion Fund and the limits on abortion for the state health plan and other government administered insurance plans.

After being slashed from more than a million dollars to $50,000 in 1995, the State Abortion Fund has been at that $50,000 level until now. If this current budget provision remains intact, this will be the first time since1978 when the fund was first established by Governor Jim Hunt that there will not be a line item in the budget funding abortions with state dollars.

The other section in the budget which prevents abortion funding states: “No State funds may be used for the performance of abortions or to support the administration of any governmental health plan or government-offered insurance policy offering abortion, except that this prohibition shall not apply where (i) the life of the mother would be endangered if the unborn child were carried to term or (ii) the pregnancy is the result of a rape or incest. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit medical care provided after a spontaneous miscarriage.”⁵

Various legislators have tried unsuccessfully in the past to rid the State Employees Health Plan of elective abortion coverage. This section limiting coverage will finally accomplish what prior attempts have failed to do.

More recently, the University System has begun requiring students who do not have private coverage to sign up for a student health insurance plan through the University which does provide elective abortion coverage. This section limiting abortion funding will fix this problem.

If these sections survive the attempts to undo them, then these provisions will provide the tax payers of the state with a great victory. The vast majority of taxpayers, including those who consider themselves “pro-choice,” do not want their tax dollars to pay for abortions.

While there were no attempts to amend these sections of the budget, the debate is not over. The proposed budget now goes to the House floor the week of May 1 and then to the Senate where it will be debated in committee and on the Senate floor. Stay tuned to find out what happens to these provisions.

NOTE: NORTH CAROLINA RIGHT TO LIFE TAKES NO STAND ON CONTRACEPTIVES, MAMMOGRAMS, ETC. These items are only mentioned because they were brought up in debate and to point out the discrepancies between what Planned Parenthood says and what it does.

Resources:

House Budget H 200

Planned Parenthood: Abortion

Planned Parenthood: Money

Planned Parenthood: Mega Clinics

Planned Parenthood: Politics

Planned Parenthood: The Organization

Polling: Abortion, Funding, Pain of Unborn, Etc.

Abortion-Woman's Right to Know Introduced in NC House and Senate

2011-04-18T15:12:00.004-04:00

North Carolina Right to Life is pleased that Reps. Ruth Samuelson and Pat McElraft in the House and Senators Andrew Brock, Kathy Harrington and Warrren Daniel in the Senate have introduced the Abortion-Woman's Right to Know, our top priority for this legislative session. In the House, the bill number is H854; in the Senate, the bill number is S769.

Generally speaking, the decision whether to have an abortion is often a traumatic one. It is not made any easier by ignorance. The question has too often been framed as a choice between a lifetime of misery or a quick fix. The issue is more complicated as many women later sadly realize.

Many women who undergo abortions later face years of psychological pain and trauma. Some experience physical problems. A woman needs to be aware that abortion does not offer an easy escape from her problems. Often, it only complicates them.

Informed consent legislation is not an attack on a personal freedom, but a guarantee of it. It is constitutionally and legally sound. It safeguards a woman's right to know and to make informed decisions, helps protect physicians from lawsuits, and is a reasoned and compassionate response to the needs of concerned pregnant women.

When a pregnant woman is fully informed about abortion and the alternatives, often she will choose to give birth rather than abort her child. Therefore, this legislation has the potential to reduce dramatically the approximately 30,000 abortions performed in our state every year. Based on statistics compiled in other states who have such WRTK laws, there could be several thousand fewer abortions in NC every year with a WRTK in effect. In fact, South Carolina has experienced a dramatic drop in the numbers of abortions in their state since passing pro-life legislation: Click here.

Finally, North Carolina is one of only two Southern states without such a law. Please note: the red states have WRTK laws in effect; the brown states have ineffective laws; and the yellow states are states which do not have WRTK laws.

ACTION ITEM (Please act immediately.):

The bill is in the NC House Judiciary B Committee. If your House member is a member of this committee, ask him or her to vote in favor of the bill and oppose any amendments that would weaken or gut the bill.

If your House member is not a member of the committee, ask him or her to support the bill when it comes to the House floor for a vote and to oppose all amendments offered on the House floor to weaken or gut the bill.

The crossover deadline (the date by which this bill has to pass the House in order to be eligible to be considered in the Senate) is currently May 12.

Resources:

Research Bulletins on Abortion's Negative Effects

Fact Sheet on PsychoSocial Consequences of Abortion

Fact Sheet on Physical Complications from Abortion

Economic impact of Abortion

RU-486

Carol Tobias Becomes the Newly Elected President of National Right to Life

2011-04-11T16:02:00.000-04:00

WASHINGTON -- On Saturday, April 9, Carol Tobias was elected president of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the national federation of 50 state affiliates and more than 3,000 local chapters. Tobias, who becomes the 8th NRLC president since Roe v. Wade, succeeds Wanda Franz, Ph.D. of West Virginia.

"I am extremely humbled and honored to be elected president by the National Right to Life board, which represents our nationwide network of state affiliates and local chapters,” said Mrs. Tobias. “As the late pro-life Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois said, National Right to Life ‘is the flagship of the pro-life movement.’ I’m looking forward to the opportunity to help our pro-life network in its continuing effort to educate the public and pass laws protecting mothers and their unborn children.”

A native of North Dakota, Tobias has served on the NRLC board of directors since 1987. From 1983 to 1991 she was executive director of North Dakota Right to Life and in 1991 was hired as NRLC political director, a position she held until 2005. During her tenure as NRLC political director, pro-life majorities
were elected to both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. In both 2000 and 2004, she oversaw the efforts of NRLC’s political action committee on behalf of George W. Bush.

Mrs. Tobias was elected by the NRLC board of directors at its spring board meeting. The board of directors is comprised of representatives from each of NRLC’s 50 state affiliates and 8 directors elected at-large. NRLC is the nation’s pro-life organization which is representative of the country’s grassroots pro-life citizens and activists

.
“The pro-life movement is the greatest social cause of our time,” added Tobias. “I am eager to continue National Right to Life’s educational, legislative and political efforts to advance the right to life of the most vulnerable members of our human family – the unborn, the elderly, and the medically dependent and disabled.”

Other officers and executive committee members elected at the spring board meeting include: Executive Vice-President: Anthony J. Lauinger of Oklahoma; Vice-President for International Affairs: Jeanne E. Head, R.N. of New York; Vice-President for Medical Ethics: John Wayne Cockfield, USMC Ret. of South Carolina; Secretary: Holly Gatling of South Carolina; Treasurer: Rev. Dennis C. Day of Idaho; Chairman of the Board: Hon. Geline B. Williams of Virginia; Vice-Chairman of the Board: Hon. Lynda Bell of Florida; and Chet Rucinski of Wisconsin.

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of 50 state right-to-life organizations and more than 3,000 local chapters nationwide, is the nation's largest pro-life group. National Right to Life works through legislation and education to protect those threatened by abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and assisted suicide.

State Senate to take up the U V V A/Ethen's Law in Judiciary II Committee

2011-04-05T22:05:00.000-04:00

The Senate Judiciary II Committee will take up the Unborn Victims of Violence Act/Ethen’s Law, H-215, on Thursday, April 7 at 10:00 AM. From here, the bill will go to the Senate floor for final votes.

Here is a list of the members of the committee. Each member needs to receive constituent calls in support of the bill.

Here are links to a list of all State Senators and to find out who represents you. Please ask your friends and family to make calls in support of the bill.

See previous posts on this page about this bill.

Victory - NC House Passes Unborn Victims of Violence Act/Ethen's Law

2011-03-30T01:53:00.000-04:00

For the first time since 1997, the NC House debated and passed a long sought after piece of pro-life legislation. The passage of H-215, Ethen's Law, in the NC House is just the first step in having North Carolina join 25 other states and the federal government in recognizing the unborn child as a second victim at any stage of development. 10 other states have partial coverage.

Thursday, March 24, 2011, the NC House passed H-215, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act/Ethen's Law, on Third Reading 75-34. 13 Democrats and 62 Republicans voted to recognize the unborn child as a second victim when a crime is committed and the unborn child is injured or killed. To read the bill and see all the votes on the bill, click here.

The bill is now in the Senate Judiciary II Committee where it will be debated. With a favorable report, the bill will then go to the Senate floor. It will head to the Governor when it passes Third Reading on the Senate side.

To see which State Senators are sponsors of the Senate version of this bill, click here. Then, thank your State Senator if he or she is a primary or co sponsor of the bill. If your State Senator is not a primary or co sponsor of the bill, contact your State Senator to request support for the bill. You can find out who your State Senator is by clicking here.

Resources:
Press Conference

News & Observer

WRAL

Winston-Salem Journal

NRLC's UVVA Resource Page

Letter Emailed to All NC House Members about UVVA/Ethen's Law-H215

2011-03-23T23:45:00.000-04:00

March 23, 2011

Dear Representative:

North Carolina Right to Life (NCRTL) supports the Unborn Victims of Violence Act/Ethen's Law (H215) which will be heard on the House floor tomorrow afternoon. We ask you to support the bill and oppose any amendments to the bill which would weaken or gut it; NCRTL plans to include these votes in its scorecard of votes taken this session.

We urge you to support the bill because North Carolina is one of only 15 states that currently does not recognize the unborn child as a second victim when the unborn child is injured or killed by an assailant. The Federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act does recognize the unborn child as a second victim in those parts of North Carolina that are under federal jurisdiction (the Blue Ridge Parkway, military bases, and federal buildings). Passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act/Ethen's Law H215 would correct this inequity.

Additionally, the victim's families have petitioned the NC Legislature over the last several years to pass legislation like the bill that will be before you tomorrow. Effie Steele, the mother of Ebony Robinson and grandmother of Elijah Robinson both killed in 2007, gave an impassioned plea before the Judiciary B Committee for the legislature to pass the Unborn Victims of Violence Act/Ethen's Law. Like other victims' families, she spoke as a grieving mother and grandmother in favor of a state law to acknowledge what her family and the other victims' families know, that there were two human victims, not just one, when her unborn grandson and her daughter were killed.

Some opponents of the bill have argued that the assailant should have to know the woman to be pregnant in order to be charged for the injury or death of her unborn child. Court decisions in California and Minnesota have ruled that it is not necessary for the assailant to know the woman to be pregnant in order to charge the assailant with a crime against the unborn child. In writing for the majority in the California case, Justice Janice Rogers Brown wrote: "Had one of Fansler's other children died during defendant's assault, there would be no inquiry into whether defendant knew the child was present for implied malice murder liability to attach. Similarly, there is no principled basis on which to require defendant to know Fansler was pregnant to justify an implied malice murder conviction as to her fetus. In battering and shooting Fansler, defendant acted with knowledge of the danger to and conscious disregard for life in general. That is all that is required for implied malice murder. He did not need to be specifically aware how many potential victims his conscious disregard for life endangered."

(Source: http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/CASupremeCourtruling040504.html)

In its document "Key Facts on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act," National Right to Life wrote the following about the Minnesota case: "As the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in upholding the Minnesota unborn victims law, "The possibility that a female homicide victim of childbearing age may be pregnant is a possibility that an assaulter may not safely exclude." [State v. Merrill, 450 N.W.2d 318 (Minn. 1990)]. To read the entire document of Key Facts, go here. The majority of these key facts are as germane to the debate which will take place tomorrow on the House floor regarding H215 as they were in the debate about the Federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004.

The majority of citizens support recognizing the unborn child as a second victim. 79% (69% of whom are pro-choice) in a 2003 Fox News poll said that prosecutors should be able to charge an attacker with the murder of an unborn child if the pregnant woman was physically attacked and the attack led to the death of her unborn child. You can see the complete poll results here. It is noteworthy that these same people do not support our current one victim law, "Injury to a Pregnant Woman," which H-215 repeals.

Finally, the opponents of the bill have offered various types of hypothetical situations in arguing against the bill. There are 25 states with laws like the one you are being asked to support tomorrow and 10 additional states with partial coverage; none of these states to my knowledge have needed to amend their laws because of any unintended consequences associated with their laws.

Please support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act/Ethen's Law with your votes on Thursday, March 24.

Respectfully,

Barbara Holt
President
North Carolina Right to Life, Inc.
POB 9282
Greensboro, NC 27429-0282
336-213-2211 (cell)

Vote on H215 Expected March 23

2011-03-20T19:30:00.000-04:00

First Vote on Unborn Victims of Violence Act/Ethen’s Law Expected on Wednesday, March 23

Last Wednesday, the House Judiciary B committee heard testimony from various individuals, but none of the testimonies could compare with Effie Steele's impassioned plea for justice for her 21 year old daughter Ebony Robinson and her unborn son Elijah who were murdered only weeks before Ebony was due to deliver Elijah.

With photos of both Ebony and Elijah in front of her and facing the committee members, Effie pleaded with the committee to recognize that when Elijah died, she lost her only grandson who should have been recognized as a victim just as his mother was by charging the murderer with two murder charges. She finished her testimony in tears as she begged the members to set aside their abortion biases and recognize that the bill is not about abortion but about charging assailants with two crimes when they kill or injury a mother and her unborn child.

The bill is expected to come up for a vote in the Judiciary Sub Committee B, chaired by Reps. Paul Stam and Sarah Stevens, on Wednesday, March 23, 2011, at 10:00 am in Room 421 of the Legislative Office Building. It is important for the members of the sub committee, especially the Democrats, to hear from their constituents.

The committee members should be urged to support the bill with their vote in committee as well as on the House floor. To see a list of the members of the committee, click here. By following this link, you can get to the web page for your particular legislator who is on the committee. Phone calls are preferred to emails. If you can only send an email, be sure to put Support H215 in the subject line of the email.

If you live in the districts for Reps. Bordsen (Alamance), Bryant (Halifax and Nash), Glazier (Cumberland), Haire (Haywood, Jackson, Macon, Swain), Martin (Wake), and Michaux (Durham) and can come to the committee meeting, you should try to be there early enough to introduce yourself to your representative as a constituent who supports recognizing the unborn as a second victim.

H215 recognizes the unborn child as a second victim when the unborn child is injured or dies during the commission of a crime. Currently, if an unborn child dies or is injured on federal property located in North Carolina, the criminal can be charged for the injury or death of the child; yet, the same person could not be charged for the injury or death of the unborn child if the same crime was committed any where else in North Carolina.

Passage of H215 will correct this inequity. The victims’ families are seeking and deserve justice for their families and recognition that two of their family members have been affected when their pregnant daughters and grandchildren have been killed or injured.

North Carolina Right to Life supports the passage of The Unborn Victims of Violence Act/Ethen’s Law (UVVA), H215, which is modeled after the Federal UVVA passed in 2004 and signed into law by President George W. Bush.

Other Resources:

Press Conference

News & Observer

WRAL

Winston-Salem Journal

NRLC's UVVA Resource Page

2011-03-14T20:05:00.000-04:00

First Hearing on Unborn Victims of Violence Act/Ethen’s Law Slated for Wednesday, March 16

The bill will come up for “discussion only” in the Judiciary Sub Committee B, chaired by Reps. Paul Stam and Sarah Stevens, on Wednesday, March 16, 2011 at 10:00 am in Room 421 of the Legislative Office Building. It is important for the members of the sub committee, especially the Democrats, to hear from their constituents.

Even though they are not supposed to be voting on Wednesday, the committee members need to hear from constituents urging them to support the bill when it comes up for a vote. To see a list of the members of the committee, click here. By following this link, you can get to the web page for your particular legislator who is on the committee. Phone calls are preferred to emails. If you can only send an email, be sure to put Support H215 in the subject line of the email.

Other Resources:

Press Conference

News & Observer

WRAL

Winston-Salem Journal

NRLC's UVVA Resource Page

Unborn Victims of Violence Act/Ethen's Law introduced in NC House Today

2011-03-03T14:50:00.000-05:00

Greensboro, NC – State Representatives Dale Folwell (R-74), Mark Hilton (R-96), Edgar Starnes (R-87), and Fred Steen (R-76) have introduced the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA)/Ethen’s Law. The UVVA recognizes that when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman, and injures or kills her unborn child, he has claimed two human victims.

Modeled after the federal UVVA which passed Congress April 1, 2004, the bill corrects the inequality of having parts of North Carolina, under federal jurisdiction, recognize the unborn as a second victim while the remainder of the state, not under federal jurisdiction, does not.

Currently, there are 35 states with complete or partial coverage of unborn victims. If passed as introduced, the UVVA will make North Carolina the 26th state having complete coverage, like Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia.

“The many North Carolina families of unborn victims of violence should not have to wait any longer for North Carolina to recognize that they have lost two, not just one, members of their families,” stated Barbara Holt, President of North Carolina Right to Life. “We urge the legislature to make these families’ wishes a reality by passing the bill quickly.”

ACTION: Contact your State House member to support the bill if his or her name is not listed as a Primary or Co- Sponsor of the bill. To read the bill, see the list of Primary and Co Sponsors, and find contact information for your State House member, click here. If your State House member is one of the sponsors, please be sure to say thank you.

2011-02-20T16:32:00.000-05:00

NRLC and NCRTL Commend U.S. House for Vote to Cut Federal Funds from "Bloated Abortion Mega-Marketer Planned Parenthood"

WASHINGTON (February 18, 2011) -- The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the nationwide federation of state right-to-life organizations, and its state affiliate North Carolina Right to Life (NCRTL) express strong approval that the U.S. House of Representatives today adopted, 240-185, an amendment offered by Congressman Mike Pence (R-In.) to cut off federal funds to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and 102 named PPFA affiliates.

"This landmark vote demonstrates that most House members now recognize Planned Parenthood is a hyper-political, under-regulated, out-of-control mega-marketer of abortion as a method of birth control," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson.

In a letter to House members, NRLC said, "PPFA is the nation’s largest abortion provider, reporting 324,008 abortions in 2008. . . . According to press reports, PPFA has recently mandated that all of its regional affiliates must provide abortions by the end of 2013. Recent media reports regarding abuses associated with PPFA-affiliated clinics in multiple states provide additional justifications for the amendment."

The allegations regarding abuses, uncovered by independent journalists posing as sex traffickers, have received substantial coverage in mainstream news media in recent weeks, including this story in the New York Times.

The Pence Amendment does not affect the funding level for any federal program. Instead, it disqualifies PPFA and its named affiliates from receiving any type of federal funds.

(In a 2010 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected a claim that a similar law, cutting off federal funds for the organization ACORN and its affiliates, violated the Constitution's Bill of Attainder Clause.) PPFA affiliates receive about one-third of their aggregate clinic-level income from selling abortions. PPFA has a total annual budget of about $1.1 billion, of which about one-third comes from various levels of government, including at least $88.7 million in a year (2008) from the federal government.

The Pence Amendment was added to H.R. 1, a measure to fund all federal agencies through September 30, 2011. The bill contains a number of other pro-life provisions supported by NRLC, including a provision to restore a policy (overturned by President Obama) denying U.S. foreign aid funds to certain organizations that promote abortion as a method of birth control, and a provision restoring a previous ban on the use of congressionally appropriated funds for abortion on demand in the Federal district (Washington, D.C.), where abortion is currently allowed without any limitation.

The abortion-related provisions will next be considered in the U.S. Senate -- where 33 seats, 23 of them currently held by Democrats or independents who caucus with the Democrats, will be on next year's general election ballot.

"Now senators, too, will go on record on whether to push the snout of this bloated abortion mega-marketer, Planned Parenthood, out of the U.S. Treasury feeding trough," said NRLC's Johnson.

Any differences that emerge between the House and Senate versions of the funding bill will become subjects for negotiations between the two houses, and with the White House.

Recommended further reading regarding PPFA's accelerating efforts to increase its abortion "market share": "Planned Parenthood: Building an Abortion Empire," by Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D., here; and "Planned Parenthood's Unseemly Empire: The Billion-Dollar 'Nonprofit'," by Charlotte Allen, here.

NC Members of Congress voting to "De-Fund" Planned Parenthood:

Reps. Renee Ellmers (R-2), Walter Jones (R-3), Virginia Foxx (R-5), Howard Coble (R-6), Mike McIntyre (D-7), Sue Myrick (R-9), Patrick McHenry (R-10), and Heath Shuler (D-11).

N C Members voting to continue to "Fund" Planned Parenthood:

Reps. G. K. Butterfield (D-1), David Price (D-4), Larry Kissell (D-8), Mel Watt (D-12), and Brad Miller (D-13).

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and the Future of Abortion Jurisprudence

2011-02-11T22:11:00.000-05:00

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and the Future of Abortion Jurisprudence
Part One of Five

By Mary Spaulding Balch, JD
NRLC Director of State Legislation

Mary Spaulding Balch, JD

It would be difficult to overstate the historic importance of Nebraska's 2010 Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, the first state law to present the Supreme Court with the opportunity to bring its abortion jurisprudence into the 21st Century. The law is grounded in a moral empathy that resonates with the American people: "You don't kill unborn children capable of feeling pain." Basing its conclusion on an enormous body of medical research (literally hundreds of studies), this first-of-its kind law conservatively sets the demarcation at 20 weeks.

So why, after publicly hinting it was just a matter of time, have pro-abortion organizations not challenged the law in court? Quite probably because pro-abortionists appreciate that when abortion's brutal realities overcome the gauzy generalities about "choice," the public opinion needle moves in the direction of life. That is precisely what happened in the long, long debate over partial-birth abortion. Better than most, abortion advocates understand that you don't need coursework in fetal anatomy to sense that at twenty weeks babies will suffer excruciating pain as they are being torn apart. Furthermore they understand that the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act could not have passed had today's scientific understanding about and public awareness of the unborn child not advanced leaps and bounds from 1973 when the United States Supreme Court handed down its infamous Roe v. Wade Decision. Sonograms of the once nearly invisible unborn child are now plastered on refrigerators all over the world.

There are ironies galore, but none more stark than this. Pro-abortionists forever tell us that pro-lifers want to "take us back." In fact what makes the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act so dangerous to Roe is that it demands preciously the opposite. Rather than freezing our understanding of fetal development at what was available to the High Court 38 years ago, the law says, "Come, let's see what we know now that we didn't know then." And seeing is believing, which is why abortion proponents are so dead-set against the passage of laws which make it possible for abortion-vulnerable women to see an ultrasound of their unborn babies. "Informed choice" is the last thing abortion clinic personnel are looking for.

Forty years ago, the unborn child virtually did not exist in medicine. "Fetal medicine" was an oxymoron. Our understanding of pain was so primitive that even a newborn undergoing surgery did so without anesthesia! They received only a paralytic to keep them still.

The use of ultrasound was introduced in the late '70s. The possibility of literally seeing the unborn child opened the eyes not only of parents but of doctors, allowing them to diagnose problems that heretofore were only known in newborns. The concept of the unborn child as a patient was born. It was the beginning of a subspecialty that we know today as fetal medicine. With the ability to see this new patient came in utero surgery--the ability to save premature unborn children at earlier and earlier intervals. Once highly experimental, fetal surgery is now a frequent occurrence at several hospitals around the country.

As recent as last Wednesday night, ABC News ran an important investigative piece on fetal surgery which is likely soon to become standard care for some conditions such as spina bifida.

We can see in retrospect that two lines of investigation were intersecting. On one axis doctors were observing that when pricked by a needle, even the most premature babies grimaced. On the other axis, physicians saw that unborn children could experience pain, due to the ever-increasing use of fetal surgery. The question arose: at what point in fetal development is the child capable of experiencing pain?

In 2005, Congressional hearings were held on the issue of unborn children's pain. Expert witnesses included Jean A. Wright, M.D., MBA, and such as Dr. K. J. S. Anand. Dr. Wright testified "an unborn fetus after 20 weeks of gestation has all the prerequisite anatomy, physiology, hormones, neurotransmitters, and electrical current to close the loop and create the conditions needed to perceive pain." Subsequently Dr. Anand, currently a Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology, & Neurobiology at The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, said in a document accepted as expert by a federal court, "It is my opinion that the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and that pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by newborns or older children."

Is there evidence that the Supreme Court is aware of all this? There is clear evidence Justice Kennedy is. Justice Kennedy has described the gruesome nature of the most common abortion technique used in the second trimester, dilation and evacuation or D & E, in terms that make clear that it would be extremely painful: "[F]riction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus . . . ." he wrote in the 2007 case of Gonzales v. Carhart. Justice Kennedy used even more graphic descriptions of D&E abortions in his dissent in Stenberg v. Carhart, "The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb."

In Gonzales v. Carhart, the decision upholding the federal ban on partial-birth abortions, Justice Kennedy also dealt with two other issues germane to the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. He wrote

"In a decision so fraught with emotional consequence some doctors may prefer not to disclose precise details of the means that will be used, confining themselves to the required statement of risks the procedure entails. . . . It is, however, precisely this lack of information concerning the way in which the fetus will be killed that is of legitimate concern to the State. . . . It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form."

What Justice Kennedy for the Court stated to be true with regard to partial-birth abortion--its impact on the mother, and the State's interest--may equally be applied to those abortions performed when the unborn child is capable of experiencing, and does experience, pain from the abortion technique.

Equally important, Kennedy (widely understood to be the decisive fifth vote in abortion cases) wrote in Gonzales that "it is inappropriate for the Judicial Branch to provide an exhaustive list of state interests implicated by abortion."

The Justices have never addressed the issue of an unborn child's pain. If/when they do it would be a case of 'first impression,' as lawyers put it. Recognizing a compelling state interest in the unborn child who is capable of experiencing pain would not require the Court to overturn, but only to supplement, its prior recognition of a compelling "state interest" in the unborn child after viability. The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was upheld in Gonzales, although it made no distinction based on viability. As Justice Kennedy wrote, "The [Partial-Birth Abortion Ban] Act does apply both previability and postviability because, by common understanding and scientific terminology, a fetus is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb."

It is critically important to understand that the interest asserted here is not just one in diminishing or eliminating the unborn children's pain during an abortion.

Rather, it is that the unborn child's capacity to experience pain is a significant developmental milepost, making the unborn child at that point sufficiently akin to an infant or older child to trigger a compelling state interest.

The stage of development at which the unborn child is capable of experiencing pain is at least as "clear" and arguably more "workable" in comparison with viability. While viability is predominately an extrinsic measurement of the capacity of medical science to sustain the life of a premature infant, the capacity to feel pain is an intrinsic, innate feature of the unborn child at a particular stage of development.

While no one can definitively predict how the majority of the Supreme Court, and in particular Justice Kennedy, would rule on the constitutionality of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, the evolving development of the High Court's abortion litigation, and particularly its decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, leads us to this conclusion. There may well be receptivity to a well-documented effort to demonstrate the reasonableness of recognizing the reality of fetal pain by 20 weeks post-fertilization, and the justification for acting to minimize it by preventing abortions not necessary to avert death or substantial and long-lasting physical impairment of a major bodily organ from 20 weeks on.

1,500 Pro-Life North Carolinians Rally in Raleigh

2011-01-18T21:41:00.000-05:00

Approximately 1,500 pro-lifers from across North Carolina gathered in Raleigh on January 15, for the annual Rally and March for Life. Bishop Michael Burbidge of the Catholic Diocese of Raleigh gave brief remarks and the Invocation. The Knights of Columbus Color Guard presented the colors and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Barbara Holt, President of North Carolina Right to Life, and the Mistress of Ceremonies Amy Huffman, Chairwoman of Alamance County Right to Life, alternated in reading greetings from United States Senator Richard Burr (R) and United States Representatives Renee Ellmers (R-2), Walter Jones (R-3), Virginia Foxx (R-5), Howard Coble (R-6), Mike McIntyre (D-7), Sue Myrick (R-9), Patrick McHenry (R-10), and Heath Shuler (D-11).

Wayne Cockfield, at-large Board Member of the National Right to Life Committee, spoke about the rationing aspects of the Obama Health Care law, that euthanasia is a threat to all of us, and about the slippery slope created by the legalization of abortion.

Wayne Cockfield, the featured speaker at the 2011 North Carolina RTL Rally for Life checks his notes prior to his compelling speech about the need to repeal Obama's Health Care Law.

"When our top priority, Abortion--Woman's Right to Know, becomes law it will save many thousands of unborn children from abortion every year in North Carolina," said Holt. "The unborn children and their mothers cannot afford to wait any longer for our state to pass such a law. The stage was set for its passage on November 2 and the time is now when the legislature convenes on January 26."

Alyse Player sang "Orphans of God," which was so appropriate to the purpose of the Rally. (You can watch Alyse's 2008 performance of the song at http://alyseplayer.com/videos. She also sang the song at the 2009 NRLC Convention held in Charlotte, North Carolina.)

Reverend Brent Tysinger, Pastor of Mount Pleasant Community Church of Trinity, gave the Benediction.

Immediately following the Rally, the March for Life commenced for an eight block march around the State Capitol, ending with refreshments at Sacred Heart Cathedral parking lot, where marchers were able to purchase CDs by Alyse Player (www.alyseplayer.com) and to get pro-life literature.

This article appeared on Today's News & Views and National Right to Life News Today. To send a comment to Dave Andrusko, write daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like to follow Dave, join him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha.

Pro-Life Events in Raleigh on January 15

2010-12-27T15:56:00.005-05:00

North Carolina Right to Life, Inc. will host the 12th Annual Prayer Breakfast for Life on January 15, 2011, at the Holiday Inn Brownstone Hotel and Conference Center, 1707 Hillsborough Street, Raleigh, NC.

(Breakfast begins at 9:30 a.m. - Program 10:00 a.m.)

The cost for the breakfast is $25/person, $40/married couple, $20/students, clergy, and seniors. Payment can be made using MC/VISA/DISCOVER/Check. Call 1-800-392-6275 to register by phone using MC, VISA or Discover. Mail check or money order to NCRTL Events, PO Box 9282, Greensboro, N. C. 27429-0282.

WAYNE COCKFIELD

Wayne Cockfield, USMC Retired, Florence, South Carolina, serves on the board of the National Right to Life Committee and works with South Carolina Citizens for Life, a state affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee. He helped to successfully lobby the U.S. Congress for passage of the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997, which prevents federal tax dollars from being used to fund the killing of American citizens. He also lobbied successfully for a Medicare bill to ensure that Americans would not be prohibited from using their own money to obtain non-rationed health care and would not be denied medical treatment based on their quality of life.

A Vietnam War veteran, Cockfield stepped on a land mine in 1969 while on river patrol in Quang Nam Province. As a result, he lost both legs, much of the use of his right hand, and suffered numerous internal injuries.

"People with disabilities are often mistakenly considered by others to have a 'poor quality of life,'" Cockfield says. "Assisted suicide is spoken about by people with no serious disabilities. Disabled people do not want to die." Wayne will be the featured speaker at both events.

Reverend Jarrod Scott

Reverend Jarrod Scott, Senior Pastor of Green Pines Baptist Church in Knightdale, will give the Invocation and a reflection.

(Photo-Kim Lancaster)
Alyse Player

Alyse Player, www.alyseplayer.com, will be the featured vocalist at both events. Since age 5, Alyse has been singing at many events, competitions, church services and festivals. She has won several local talent competitions, and has received a Top Vocalist Award with a National Competition Company. She was so well received at our events in 2010 that we asked her to be at our events in 2011.

The 2011 Annual Rally and March for Life will immediately follow the Prayer Breakfast at 1:00 p.m. at Nash Square, the corner of Hargett and McDowell Streets in downtown Raleigh, NC. All pro-lifers from across the state are invited to stand up for life and to display proudly your church or school banner in support of life. Our newly elected members of the General Assembly will be in Raleigh that day and will be taking note of our gathering. Come to represent your community as a voice for the voiceless.

The Most Reverend Michael F. Burbidge

Reverend Brent Tysinger

Speakers: The Most Reverend Michael F. Burbidge, Bishop of the Diocese of Raleigh, will give remarks and the Invocation. Reverend Brent C. Tysinger, Pastor of Mt. Pleasant Community Church in Asheboro, will give the Benediction.

Greetings from pro-life elected officials will be read. Information about North Carolina Right to Life's #1 legislative priority will be explained. A challenge will be issued to all pro-lifers to lobby their newly elected members of the NC General Assembly to pass an Abortion-Woman's Right to Know law which is estimated to save every year thousands of North Carolina's unborn children from abortion.

The NC Knights of Columbus Color Guard will present the colors at the Rally and lead the March. The March for Life will end at Sacred Heart Cathedral with refreshments and an opportunity to get pro-life materials such as pamphlets, precious feet pins, bumper stickers, magnets, etc. Alyse Player will have her CDs for sale.

For More Information, call: NCRTL at 1-800-392-6275.

UPDATES & RELATED UPCOMING EVENTS

2010-10-12T16:22:00.000-04:00

"REVEREND DEATH"

Christian Action League first alerted North Carolina Right to Life (NCRTL) to an article in the Charlotte Observer about Reverend Exxo's plans to open an assisted suicide facility in Gastonia. We posted an article on this blog. Then, Christian Action League posted its own article containing additional information to their web site. Please read their article: Click here.

TEEN CONVICTED

Assisted suicide became an issue in the recent Wake County murder case in which Patrick Hare was convicted of murdering Matthew Silliman. This case is a further illustration of the problem that exists in our state because North Carolina has no law banning assisted suicide. Hare's attorney suggested to the jury that Hare had assisted Silliman in committing a suicide. Read the article by Luanne Williams with the Christian Action League which appeared on their web site on September 30, 2010: Click here.

LIFE CONFERENCE

On October 23, 2011, in Raleigh there will be a Life Conference where end of life and abortion issues will be discussed. Dorothy Yeung, NCRTL Vice-President, will be one of the featured speakers. While some topics will be discussed like capital punishment which is not one of NCRTL's issues, the majority of the conference will address issues central to our educational and public policy efforts. Visit their web site to learn more about the speakers and their topics and how to register for the event. Click here.

WAYNE COCKFIELD: FEATURED SPEAKER AT NCRTL JANUARY 2011 EVENTS

On January 15, 2011, Wayne Cockfield, USMC Retired from
Florence, South Carolina, will be the featured speaker at the 12th Annual Prayer for Life at the Holiday Inn-Brownstone Hotel and Conference Center at 9:30 AM and Rally for Life being held in Raleigh at Nash Square at 1:00 PM.
Wayne Cockfield successfully helped lobby the U.S. Congress for passage of the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997, which prevents federal tax dollars from being used to fund the killing of American citizens. Prior to the enactment of the recent Obama Helath Care Law, he also lobbied successfully for a Medicare bill that assured Americans are not prohibited from using their own money to obtain non-rationed health care, and are not denied medical treatment based on their quality of life.
A Vietnam War veteran, Cockfield stepped on a land mine in 1969 while on river patrol in Quang Nam Province. As a result, he lost both legs, much of the use of his right hand, and suffered numerous internal injuries. "People with disabilities are often mistakenly considered by others to have a 'poor quality of life,'" Cockfield says. "Assisted suicide is spoken about by people with no serious disabilities. Disabled people do not want to die." (Source: The Nightingale Alliance web site)

All pro-lifers are encouraaged to come hear Wayne make his compelling case against assisted suicide and euthanasia. Be on watch for all the details coming to the NCRTL web site very soon. Click here.

Assisted Suicide Advocate and Practitioner to Bring His Deadly Business to North Carolina

2010-09-14T21:47:00.003-04:00

The Rev. George Exoo, a self-described advocate for assisted suicide, has purchased property in Gastonia, NC where he hopes to assist individuals in killing themselves. He claims to have helped already more than 100 people to commit suicide, as well as talk people through the process over the phone. Because North Carolina does not have a law that specifically bans assisted suicide, he views our state and Gastonia, in particular, as an ideal place to assist persons who want to kill themselves. As he explained to the Charlotte Observer reporter and News 14 Carolina, Gastonia is near the Charlotte International Airport and is close to states like Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, and New York which would allow people easy access to his so-called "right to die" hospice.

North Carolina Right to Life (NCRTL) advocated for a bill several years ago that would have banned assisted suicide in NC. State Senator James Forrester, a physician, introduced the legislation. Unfortunately, the chairman of the committee where the bill was referred, had the ear of the Hospice and Palliative Care of the Carolinas that forcefully lobbied against the bill so the bill never got a hearing. The argument by the Hospice organization was two fold. First, it was said they thought that the bill would have a chilling effect on doctors' use of morphine to treat pain. Second, it was argued that NC did not have a problem with people helping others kill themselves, assisted suicide.

Morphine is a controlled substance; therefore, it is easy to get records showing the rise and fall in usage of the drug in every state. Fortunately for us, there was a study done that showed a direct correlation between the rise in the use of morphine and the strengthening of the laws banning assisted suicide. Hospice's first argument was easily refuted by the study. Still, the opponents of the bill would not budge.

Next, NCRTL learned that a documentary called Live and Let Go, An American Death was filmed in NC by a son and daughter showing their father committing suicide with their assistance. The purpose of the documentary was to make assisted suicide more acceptable. The documentary won an Asheville Film Festival award and the producers were interviewed on public radio with this writer providing the "right to life" position that those who wish to kill themselves need to receive treatment for depression and help with pain management, not help in killing themselves.

Today, there are reports in the Charlotte Observer and News 14 of the Carolinas that George Exoo, known as "Reverend Death" from the documentary by that name, is planning to set up shop in NC in large part because our state legislature did not act swiftly to ban assisted suicide here. He thinks it will take him a year to get his place ready for the killing to begin.

The state legislature must act in January 2011, when it reconvenes, to ban assisted suicide. If they do not act then, our state will later find itself fighting off a bill to legalize assisted suicide. Oregon and Washington states have already passed laws legalizing assisted suicide. The next logical step will be the state using our tax dollars to pay for assisted suicides rather than paying for expensive treatments to help cure a variety of illnesses. This has already happened in Oregon. If we are not diligent, our state could be next.

Source: http://charlotte.news14.com/content/local_news/charlotte/630337/assisted-suicide-activist-plans-gastonia--right-to-die--hospice

UNC Board of Governors Creates 2 Tier System

2010-08-20T12:30:00.003-04:00

The UNC Board of Governors is now offering students two Health Plans from which to choose, rather than providing a single Student Health Plan that does not include elective abortion coverage. One plan allows students to "opt out" of the elective abortion coverage in the Student Health Plan; and, one plan is the original plan which includes abortion coverage. Regardless of the plan, the fees remain the same. If the UNC System through its insurance provider Pearce and Pearce can provide students with an "opt out" for the elective abortion coverage, they can provide a single plan that does not cover abortion. Those students who "opt" to have abortions can pay for their own abortions out of their own funds.

The fact that the UNC System continues to keep the elective abortion coverage suggests that they want to make abortion more accessible to the students within the UNC System. As a state supported school system, the UNC University System should not be offering a Student Health Plan that provides elective abortion coverage.

According to a statement by the Board of Governors, "the University previously had hard-waiver student health insurance plans on 11 campuses and offered voluntary plans on another 5 campuses. All of these previous university plans except the one at NC Central University included elective abortion coverage." The current Student Health Plan used as its basis the previous 15 plans that had abortion coverage rather than the NC Central University plan which did not have abortion coverage.

Their statement also mentioned that the State Employees' Health Plan provides elective abortion coverage. While it is true that there is coverage for abortion in the State Employees' Health Plan, we maintain that the state should not be in the business of providing elective abortion coverage using our tax dollars. North Carolina Right to Life has been working with pro-life members in the NC House and Senate to get abortion coverage removed from the State Employee's Health Plan. Our efforts are similar to those in 1995 when we worked successfully to get the line item for abortion in the budget reduced to $50,000 and only for abortions to save the life of the mother and in cases of rape and incest. The life, rape and incest language is consistent with language in the federal Hyde Amendment.

No tax funded government institutions, agencies, etc. should be providing Health Plans which contain elective abortion coverage. Statistics compiled by the State of North Carolina show that 32.2% of all abortions performed in NC are performed on young women between the ages of 20-24 and 15.2% between the ages of 15-19. Additonally, the vast majority of abortions are performed in the counties that contain or are close to the universities that make up the UNC System.

North Carolina Right to Life urges pro-life citizens to demand that the UNC System not offer any Student Health Plan that provides elective abortion coverage. While they have shown by their actions that they have the ability to have a plan that excludes abortion coverage, it seems that they currently just lack the will to it. That is where pressure from the people of this state can make the difference. You can help them find the will to eliminate the elective abortion coverage from the UNC system wide Student Health Plan. Contact the Board of Governors to make your voice heard on this matter.

For more information about this issue, please visit the web site http://www.noabortioninhealthcare.com/.

Action Update about Elective Abortion Coverage in Mandated UNC Student Health Plan

2010-08-11T11:46:00.000-04:00

Students for Life of America (SFLA) is leading the effort to lobby the UNC System to take elective abortion coverage out of the UNC System's mandatory Student Health Plan. SFLA has established a website where you can sign a petition, email the Chairman and other members of the Board of Governors to express your disapproval that elective abortion is a covered benefit, and also learn ways to spread the word to your friends, family, and contacts.

North Carolina Right to Life (NCRTL) urges action from everyone affected by this mandated elective abortion coverage. Take action now.

Watch for further updates.

Senate confirms Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, 63-37

2010-08-06T13:19:00.000-04:00

National Right to Life (NRLC) Responds to the Vote to Confirm Elena Kagan
(Source: NRLC Legislative Action Center):

WASHINGTON (Updated August 5, 2010) -- The U.S. Senate confirmed Elena Kagan to serve as an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 63-37, on August 5, 2010.

Voting in favor of confirmation were 58 Democrats and five Republicans. Voting in opposition to confirmation were 36 Republicans and one Democrat. To view the official roll call, click here

What follows is part of the text of NRLC's earlier action alert in opposition to Kagan's confirmation:

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) is opposed to the confirmation of Kagan to the Supreme Court. President Obama nominated her to replace Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired in June.

In a June 23 letter to senators, posted here, NRLC noted that recently released documents from a period (1995-99) in which Kagan was an aide to President Clinton "reveal Ms. Kagan to have been a key strategist -- perhaps, indeed, the lead strategist within the White House -- in the successful effort to prevent enactment of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act during the Clinton Administration. . . . Ms. Kagan played a key role in keeping the brutal partial-birth abortion method legal for an additional decade." In this letter, NRLC was the first to reveal Kagan's role in covertly persuading officials of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (AGOG) to revise a statement that ACOG later issued as a supposedly authoritative statement on the medical aspects of the partial-birth abortion method -- a statement that was subsequently cited by federal judges and Supreme Court justices.

The recently released documents also show Kagan taking objectionable positions on such issues as assisted suicide, human cloning, and political free speech. Please see the letter for additional details on NRLC's objections to the Kagan nomination.

____________________________________

How did our two U. S. Senators vote on the confirmation of Elena Kagan, a confirmation which North Carolina Right to Life (the state affiliate of NRLC) also opposed?

Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) not to confirm Elena Kagan.

Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) to confirm Elena Kagan

Elective Abortion is a Covered Benefit in a UNC System Wide Student Health Plan

2010-08-02T18:31:00.003-04:00

The University of North Carolina Board of Governors has contracted with Pearce and Pearce to provide a system wide student health insurance plan, containing elective abortion as a covered benefit, for those students who do not have insurance through their parents, through an employer, or individually. Abortion is listed under the benefits' summary for the plan and says that elective abortion will be covered up to a $500 maximum benefit with 80% of PPO Allowance (in network) and a 70% of R & C (out of network).

The affected students will have to pay a student fee up to $750/year or $375/semester for the university provided plan.

North Carolina Right to Life contends that the UNC System, as a state supported system, should not be providing a student health plan that includes elective abortion as a covered benefit. Surely Pearce and Pearce would be very happy to exclude elective abortion as a covered benefit if the University made such a request.

Pro-life students, affected by this new policy, and parents of these students should protest this requirement and formally request that the benefit for elective abortion coverage should not be part of the student health insurance plan required by the University system. Pro-life alumni of the university system should lend their voices to those of the affected students to request that the benefit be excluded from the plan.

North Carolina Right to Life will continue to monitor this plan and bring updates as they are available. Those who have any contact with the UNC University system concerning this matter are encouraged to email us at ncrtl73@aol.com to let us know if the university demonstrates its willingness to opt out of the elective abortion coverage for the student health plan required under their policy.

Hagan still undecided about her Kagan vote

2010-07-17T11:57:00.000-04:00

Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) is still undecided about how she will vote on the Elena Kagan nomination to be an Associate Justice to the U. S. Supreme Court. Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) is planning to vote "NO."

National Right to Life sent a 4 page letter to all U. S. Senators explaining why it is imperative to oppose her nomination.

In their letter, "NRLC noted that recently released documents from a period (1995-99) in which Kagan was an aide to President Clinton 'reveal Ms. Kagan to have been a key strategist -- perhaps, indeed, the lead strategist within the White House -- in the successful effort to prevent enactment of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act during the Clinton Administration. . . . Ms. Kagan played a key role in keeping the brutal partial-birth abortion method legal for an additional decade.' The documents also show Kagan taking objectionable positions on such issues as assisted suicide, human cloning, and political free speech."

The Senate should be voting soon on this nomination, so time is short to make your voice heard. If you wish to send an email, you can visit the NRLC Legislative Action Center where you can easily send your message.

A phone call is an excellent way to communicate your opposition to the Kagan nomination. Senator Kay Hagan's DC phone number is 202-224-6342. To thank Senator Richard Burr, call 202-224-3154.

DISCLOSE Act passes U. S. House 219-206

2010-06-29T14:51:00.004-04:00

The U. S. House voted 219-206 to pass H. R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act, a blatantly "unconstitutional" and "unprincipled" piece of legislation. In the North Carolina Congressional delegation, 5 voted for and 8 voted against the DISCLOSE Act.

The members voting to limit our free speech rights were: Reps. Bob Etheridge (D-2), David Price (D-4), Larry Kissell (D-8), Heath Shuler (D-11), and Brad Miller (D-13).

Those members voting against this infringement of our free speech rights were: Reps. G. K. Butterfield (D-1), Walter Jones (R-3), Virginia Foxx (R-5), Howard Coble (R-6), Mike McIntyre (D-7), Sue Myrick (R-9),Patrick McHenry (R-10), and Mel Watt (D-12). To communicate your appreciation or disapproval for your elected member's vote on the DISCLOSE Act, go here and follow the link.

The bill now moves to the U. S. Senate for consideration. Please contact your N. C. Senators, Kay Hagan (D) and Richard Burr (R) to ask them to vote "NO" on the DISCLOSE Act. For contact information, go here and follow the link.

To understand why both National Right to Life and North Carolina Right to Life oppose the DISCLOSE Act, go here.

URGENT- House Could Vote This Week On the DISCLOSE Act

2010-06-15T17:30:00.001-04:00

Two of our pro-life members, Rep. Walter Jones (R-3) and Rep. Heath Shuler (D-11) are co-sponsors of the DISCLOSE Act. All NC House members need to hear from their constituency expressing strong opposition to the legislation. Please read the following letter and then contact your House members' office to tell them to vote "NO" on the DISCLOSE Act.

Click here to find your House member's phone numbers.

The following letter was sent by National Right to Life to all U. S. House members regarding the DISCLOSE Act:

Click here to view in a web browser. Click here to view or download this letter in PDF format.

June 15, 2010

RE: “DISCLOSE Act” (H.R. 5175)

Dear Member of Congress:

On May 27, 2010, we wrote to you to express our strong objections to the so-called “DISCLOSE Act” (H.R. 5175), as reported by the Committee on House Administration, which we characterized as an “attack on the First Amendment rights of your constituents and the private organizations with which they choose to associate.” Our letter (click here to read) provided detailed comments on some of the most objectionable provisions of the bill, which we will not repeat here.

More recently, House Administration Committee Chairman Brady proposed several modifications to the bill in the form of amendments filed at the Rules Committee. Mr. Brady's proposed changes range from minor to completely phony; they do not mitigate the nature or force of the objections that we expressed in our May 27 letter.

As we indicated previously, NRLC is the furthest thing from a “shadow” group. Our organization’s name and contact information always appear on our public communications, and we openly proclaim the public policies that we advocate. But there is very little in this bill, despite the pretenses, that is actually intended to provide useful or necessary information to the public. The overriding purpose is precisely the opposite: To discourage, as much as possible, disfavored groups (such as NRLC) from communicating about officeholders, by exposing citizens who support such efforts to harassment and intimidation, and by smothering organizations in layer on layer of record keeping and reporting requirements, all backed by the threat of civil and criminal sanctions.

On June 14, Congressman Clyburn’s office circulated a description of an additional change that the authors plan to make, which is being referred to informally as the “NRA carve-out.” While no legislative language for this amendment is yet available, the summary description is as follows:

Exempt Organizations from Disclosure: Section 501(c)(3) charitable organizations are exempt from the new disclosure requirements. “Exempt section 501(c)(4) organizations” are also exempt from new reporting requirements. These are organizations which have qualified as having tax exempt status under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code for each of the 10 years prior to making a campaign-related disbursement, that had 1 million or more dues-paying members in the prior calendar year, that had members in each of the 50 states, that received no more than 15 percent of their total funding from corporations or labor organizations, and that do not use any corporate or union money to pay for their campaign-related expenditures.

Based on this description of the “carve out,” we offer several observations. First, with respect to the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), this amendment is not only worthless, but adds insult to injury. NRLC is a federation of affiliated Right to Life organizations in all 50 states, each of which is separately incorporated, and each of which has its own membership structure. While the aggregate number of donors and members of the 50 state affiliates and their chapters exceeds the arbitrary one-million threshold, no individual affiliated corporation has one million “members,” nor does the federation headquarters (separately incorporated) meet that criterion. But why should this matter? Why should a movement that is comprised overwhelmingly of grassroots citizen-activists be penalized for adopting a federation structure?

It is perfectly understandable that another advocacy group that has a centralized corporate structure, and a unitary national membership roll, should wish to protect the privacy rights of its donors, and to avoid some of the crippling administrative burdens and legal traps that would be imposed by multiple provisions of H.R. 5175. But what conceivable public policy justification can be offered for imposing those very same burdens on much smaller organizations that are far poorer in the financial, administrative, and legal resources that would be demanded by the proposed array of legal traps, overlapping and accelerated reporting requirements, verbose “disclaimers,” and other devices contained in H.R. 5175 -- requirements that were clearly crafted for the very purpose of deterring speech?

Certainly, there can be no constitutional justification for the carve-out distinction. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment protects the right of incorporated groups of citizens to communicate with the public to express opinions about the actions of those who hold or seek federal office. The authors of the DISCLOSE Act have demonstrated that their overriding intent is to impede and deter the exercise of that constitutional right. The justifications offered for such legislation rest on the unspoken premise that the American people lack the capacity to properly evaluate advertising or other forms of mass communication, so the incumbent lawmakers will take it upon themselves to protect their hapless constituents from such troublesome communications, in order to prevent them from being “unduly influenced” -- and all of this is being deemed necessary to “protect democracy.”

However, the same authors now in effect propose that such “undue influence” is tolerable only if it is exercised by an especially big organization with a centralized corporate structure and large centralized professional staff. This is yet another demonstration that the real principle guiding the authors of the DISCLOSE Act is no principle at all, except crude self interest: They wish to mute as many as possible of the independent voices that might otherwise convey unflattering information to their constituents regarding legislative records and the policies of the current Administration.

One can imagine the outcry that would ensue if a lawmaker proposed that a substantial new “advocacy surtax” should be placed on all newspapers and opinion periodicals, but also proposed an exception for those publications with a national circulation of over one million. The institutional news media would characterize the tax itself as an outrageous infringement on the First Amendment, and the exception as an unsavory, unprincipled attempt to mute opposition by the largest and most influential publications. But there is not one First Amendment for the institutional news media and another First Amendment for everybody else. As the U.S. Supreme Court said in Citizens United v. FEC, “We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.”

We strongly urge you to oppose this pernicious, unprincipled, and unconstitutional legislation. The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) will include the roll call on passage of H.R. 5175 in our scorecard of key roll calls for the 111th Congress, and reserves the right to also score key procedural votes on this measure. In our scorecard and advocacy materials, the legislation will be accurately characterized as a blatant political attack on the First Amendment rights of NRLC, our state affiliates, and our members and donors.

Sincerely,

David N. O'Steen, Ph.D, Executive Director
Douglas Johnson,Legislative Director

(Please note: The just-published June edition of National Right to Life News, currently being disseminated to pro-life activists nationwide, highlights the DISCLOSE Act as the cover story. This article can be downloaded from the NRLC website here: http://www.nrlc.org/freespeech/NRLNewsDISCLOSEAct.pdf )

Click here to find your House member's phone numbers.

NCRTL joins NRLC in opposition to "DISCLOSE Act"

2010-06-01T22:13:00.003-04:00

North Carolina Right to Life joins the National Right to Life Committee in urging the U. S. House to reject the "DISCLOSE ACT" H. R. 5175, sponsored by Rep. Van Hollen. The bill is the House's effort to circumvent the recent decision of the U. S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC (2010).

In a letter to the House members, National Right to Life "suggests that the bill be amended to clarify that 'DISCLOSE' actually stands for 'Deterring Independent Speech about Congress except by Labor Organizations and Selected Elites.'"

"The four-page letter, signed by NRLC Executive Director David N. O'Steen and Legislative Director Douglas Johnson, said that the bill 'has been carefully crafted to maximize short-term political benefits for the dominant faction of one political party, while running roughshod over the First Amendment protections for political speech that have been clearly and forcefully articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court.'"

Originally, the bill was to be brought to the House floor on May 28, but action on the bill was postponed until June 7 when legislators return after the Memorial Day recess. The mounting opposition to the bill by various groups appears to be one reason for the House's delay.

To read the NRLC letter to the House members: http://www.nrlc.org/FreeSpeech/NRLCletteronDISCLOSEAct.pdf

Choose Life Rally Draws Large Crowd of Supporters and Brings Out Media

2010-05-25T22:49:00.010-04:00

Pro-lifers from across the state, as far away as Charlotte and Asheville in the west to Wilmington in the east, converged on the Legislature today for the Rally for the Choose Life License Plate.

The program included remarks by the primary sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Mitch Gillespie (R-85). Rep. Gillespie explained what prompted him to introduce the Choose Life legislation when he was first elected and he promised that as long as he served in the legislature that he would continue to file the bill until it is heard. Joinng him on stage and speaking briefly were Reps. Ric Killian (R-105) and Pat McElraft (R-13).

Russ Amerling, the National Director for the Choose Life License Plate, brought a national perspective to the debate over the efforts to have a vote on the Choose Life License Plate.

Bishops Peter Jugis and Michael Burbidge, from the Roman Catholic Dioceses of Charlotte and Raleigh respectively, attended the Rally. Bishop Jugis, with Bishop Burbidge at his side, addressed the crowd, asking all Catholics in the state to write and visit their legislators on this issue.

Bobbi Meyer, the State Director of the Carolina Pregnancy Care Fellowship, introduced the next 3 speakers: Nicole Jackson, a volunteer at he Pregnancy Care Center in Rocky Mount, NC; Wagner Fields, a former client at the Pregnancy Care Center in Greensville, NC; and Gwen Gilbert, a former client at the Pregnancy Care Center in Washington, NC.

Dorothy Yeung, the last speaker, read a statement from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) expressing their solidarity with the efforts to get a hearing for the Choose Life Plate. ADF indicated that they would "evaluate the group's legal options in the event that the legislature continues to deny pro-life persons their right to free expression."

When the Rally was over, volunteers took Choose Life Packets to each of the legislators' offices. The crowd was encouraged to visit their particular legislators' offices before they returned home.

Press packets were distributed to the members of the press who covered the event and the ADF statement was distributed also to the members of the press in the legislative press room.

Schedule for NRLC 2010 Now Online!

2010-05-20T15:42:00.000-04:00

Visit http://stoptheabortionagenda.com/convention/schedule to find a complete schedule for the convention that includes details about the Prayer Breakfast and closing Banquet. There will also be a listing of all the titles for the workshops and general sessions and each of their presenters. After seeing the list, you will surely want to be in Pittsburgh June 24-26 for NRLC 2010, the National Right to Life annual convention.

There is the additional good news. "House Republican Leader John Boehner will receive the National Right to Life Leadership Award at the 10:30 general session on Saturday, June 26. Congressman Boehner will be joined by NRLC Executive Director David N. O'Steen, Legislative Director Douglas Johnson, and Burke Balch, director of the Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics. These experts will help you to understand the mind-numbingly complex ObamaCare measure. The session's title hits the nail on the head: '2,000 Pages Plus of Really Bad Stuff.'" Make plans now to be in Pittsburgh in June for NRLC 2010.

Additionally, at the Prayer Breakfast, Mark and LaRue Pickup will talk about "Tears of Regret – Tears of Love: A Couple's Story About Learning to Value Life." and Jaime Thietten ("My Chance") will be providing special music.

You can read more about the convention at http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/

(Source: Dave Andrusko's NRL News, News and Views for May 20, 2010)

Pro-Lifers to Rally for the "Choose Life" License Plate in Raleigh on May 25 at 11:00 AM

2010-05-03T18:59:00.011-04:00

The General Assembly begins its Short Session on May 12, 2010. One of the bills that pro-lifers hope the legislature will finally take up is the "Choose Life" License Plate bill. While the leadership has not acted favorably toward the bill by refusing even to allow the bill to be brought up in committee, the Carolina Pregnancy Care Fellowship (CPCF) is sponsoring an event in the hope of changing their minds.

CPCF is the organization representing Pregnancy Centers and Maternity Homes across North Carolina. They will be the recipient of the funds raised from the purchase of a "Choose Life" plate and will distribute the funds to the various centers across the state. CPCF is hoping the Rally in Raleigh on May 25, 2010, at 11:00 AM will bring hundreds of pro-lifers to the state legislature to hear from members of the legislature who support passage of the plate why the leadership should reverse course and allow the bill a fair hearing.

The theme of the Rally "Free Specch, Why Not North Carolina?" was chosen because North Carolina is the only Southeastern* state not to have a " Choose Life" license plate. The millions of dollars raised from the sale of the plate in the states that have them are used to provide material help to mothers who have chosen to birth their babies. As long as the North Carolina refuses to allow the sale of the plate, mothers will be denied the benefit of the funds that would have been raised through the sale of the "Choose Life" plate.

The rally will feature comments by Rep. Mitch Gillespie, the primary sponsor of the legislation, and other legislators who support passage of the bill. Mothers who have been helped by the pregnancy centers will also share how they have been helped. Following the Rally, individuals will be encouraged to go by their house member's office to show their support for passage of the bill.

For more information on the bill, visit our web site http://www.ncrtl.org/ and click on Legislative Action Center.

*What comprises the Southeastern states is based on a National Geographic map: http://www.maps.com/map.aspx?pid=11113

The Obama Health Care Rationing Law:

2010-04-13T19:34:00.000-04:00

The Commission That Will Develop Standards the Administration Will Impose to Limit Private Sector Medical Care

An 18-member “Independent Payment Advisory Board” [Sec. 10320(b)] is given the duty, on January 15, 2015 and every two years thereafter, with regard to private health care, to make “recommendations to slow the growth in national health expenditures . . . that the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] or other Federal agencies can implement administratively” [Section 10320(a)(5)(o)(1)(A)]. In turn, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is empowered to impose “quality” AND “efficiency” measures [Section 10304] on health care providers (including hospices, ambulatory surgical centers, rehabilitation facilities, home health agencies, physicians and hospitals) [Section 3014(a) adding Social Security Act Section 1890(b)(7)(B)(I)] which must report on their compliance.

In complex gobbledegook, what this amounts to is that doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers will be told by Washington just what diagnostic tests and medical care is considered to meet “quality” and “efficiency” standards – not only for federally funded health care programs like Medicare, but also for health care paid for by private citizens and their nongovernmental health insurance. And these will be “quality and efficiency” standards specifically designed to limit what ordinary Americans spend on health care. Treatment that a doctor and patient in consultation deem needed or advisable to save that patient’s life or preserve or improve the patient’s health but which the government decides is too costly – even if the patient is willing and able to pay for it – will run afoul of the imposed standards. In effect, there will be one uniform national standard of care, established by Washington bureaucrats and set with a view to limiting what private citizens are allowed to spend on saving their own lives.

(For detailed analysis of other provisions that will impose rationing, see http://www.nrlc.org/HealthCareRationing/SenateBill122309.html.)

The Prospect of Repeal

The silver lining to this very dark cloud is that the most onerous rationing elements of the Obama health care law will not go into effect until 2015– well after the next Presidential election. For repeal to be a realistic prospect, three things are essential:

–The President who takes office in 2013 would have to be someone who would sign a repeal. (Theoretically, a two-thirds majority of both Houses committed to repeal could accomplish it even over a presidential veto, but achieving such numbers would be extremely difficult.)

– As a result of the 2010 and 2012 Congressional elections, a majority of those in the 2013 House of Representatives must support repeal.

– Also as a result of the 2010 and 2012 Congressional elections, the 2013 Senate must have an adequate majority committed to repeal. Full confidence of repeal would come from 60 of the 100 Senators supporting repeal – enough to impose cloture so as to overcome a filibuster. However, it is possible that, if the elections were clearly seen to have been greatly influenced by popular rejection of the Obama Health Care Rationing Law, then even if there were 41 or more Senators who had supported its adoption, some of them might prefer not to obstruct repeal, especially those soon up for re-election. It is also conceivable that the “reconciliation” process used to secure enactment of the health care law could be used by pro-repeal Senators to gut it with 51 votes.

While most observers expect gains by opponents of Obamacare in the election of Senators in 2010, a shift to a majority in support of repeal may not be achieved. However, in 2012, only 10 or 11 opponents of the law will be up for re-election, compared to either 23 or 24 Senators who voted for it standing for re-election. (This number depends on who wins the 2010 special election to fill Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s New York Senate seat – its winner will have to face the voters again in 2012.) With these odds, the chance for pro-repeal Senators to emerge in control of the Senate in 2013 is a decent one.

In short, horrific as the enactment of the Obama Health Care Rationing Law is, now is not the time to despair. Rather, the pro-life movement must devote itself over these critical years – 2010 through 2012– to ensuring that the American people are given the facts needed to counter the placating misinformation the Obama Administration and its apologists in Congress and the press are already spreading, confident that with a spoon full of sugar we will swallow their deadly recipe. We must maintain and expand the current majority that, according to most public opinion polls, rejects the Obama Health Care Rationing Law.

(Source: National Right to Life Web Site)

Urge House Not to Limit Senior Citizens’ Choice to Spend Own Money to Ensure Access to Life-Saving Health Care

2009-12-28T15:48:00.000-05:00

Senior citizens’ ability to use their own money, if they choose, to avoid involuntary denial of medical treatment under Medicare could be severely limited by a provision in the Reid health care bill.

Section 1175 of the health care bill passed by the House of Representatives November 7. The Senate is now debating and amending its own version of the bill (which unfortunately includes the same provision as its Section 1175), and once the Senate version is passed, the House will have to vote again, either on the Senate vesion or on a compromise between the two chamber's bills proposed by a conference committee. Section 1175 of the House bill would change current law, which now prevents the federal government from limiting the right of senior citizens voluntarily to add their own money of top of the government Medicare contribution so as to be able to obtain health insurance plans under the “Medicare Advantage” program that are less likely to deny treatment. Instead, Section 1175 would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in her unlimited discretion, to refuse to allow such plans to be offered to senior citizens.

Neither the House nor the Senate provision was in bills reported by the committees of either chamber; at the last minute, both were slipped into the versions sent to the floor for action.

The fundamental question is whether seniors will be prevented from using their own money, if they wish, to gain access to insurance that will not ration medical treatment. The significant cuts that the Senate and House health care bills make in Medicare increase the importance of protecting the right of older Americans, if they choose, to use their own money to save their own lives. It is critical to change Section 1175 of the House bill to keep this alternative available.

For additional information on this issue, and on other provisions in the House bill that threaten to ration lifesaving medical treatment, visit here.

( This alert appears on the NRLC web site)

Senator Kay Hagan's Abortion Stance Exposed by Her Voting Record

2009-12-14T13:53:00.006-05:00

Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) has been our
U. S. Senator for less than a year and has a
100% pro-abortion voting record.

The majority of U. S. citizens, including North Carolina citizens, oppose tax dollars being spent to pay for abortions. Senator Hagan is definitely out of step with her constituents since 3 of her 4 scored floor votes on abortion were to approve tax payer dollars for abortions. Senator Hagan supports the current version of the Senate plan for the overhaul of Health Care and voted against the pro-life amendment which was considered in H.E.L.P. Committee to restrict the funding of abortion in the bill. Senator Hagan was able to hide her abortion support from the people of North Carolina because the leadership in the North Carolina Senate would not allow any votes on abortion during her tenure as a State Senator. Fortunately for us, we now have a record from which Senator Hagan cannot now hide. Unfortunately for the babies, she will be one of North Carolina's two U. S. Senators for the next five years.

You can reach Senator Hagan to express your disapproval of her support for abortion here:

Website: hagan.senate.gov

Washington, D.C. Office:

521 Dirksen Senate Office Building,

District of Columbia 20510-3301

Phone: (202) 224-6342

Fax: (202) 228-2563

Greensboro Office:

701 Green Valley Road, Suite 201

Greensboro, North Carolina 27408

Phone: (336) 333-5311

Fax: (336) 333-5331

Raleigh Office:

310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 122

Raleigh, North Carolina 27601

Phone: (919) 856-4630

Fax: (919) 856-4053

Reid Bill provision limits senior choice to spend

2009-12-01T16:18:00.000-05:00

Section 3209 of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) proposed health care bill, which the Senate is now debating and amending, would change current law, which now prevents the federal government from limiting the right of senior citizens voluntarily to add their own money of top of the government Medicare contribution so as to be able to obtain health insurance plans under the “Medicare Advantage” program that are less likely to deny treatment.

Instead, the Reid bill provision would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in her unlimited discretion, to refuse to allow such plans to be offered to senior citizens.

The provision duplicates the little-noticed section 1175 of the bill passed by the House of Representatives. Neither provision was in bills reported by the committees of either chamber; at the last minute, both were slipped into the versions sent to the floor for action.

The fundamental question is whether seniors will be prevented from using their own money, if they wish, to gain access to insurance that will not ration medical treatment. The significant cuts that the Senate and House health care bills make in Medicare increase the importance of protecting the right of older Americans, if they choose, to use their own money to save their own lives. It is critical to change Section 3209 of the Reid bill to keep this alternative available. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR SENATORS TODAY !!

To phone your Senators (the approach most likely to be effective) or write them CLICK HERE.

For additional information on this issue, and on other provisions in the Senate bill that threaten to ration lifesaving medical treatment, visit:

http://www.nrlc.org/HealthCareRationing/ReidSubstitute.html .

2009-11-17T14:26:00.004-05:00

11th Annual Prayer Breakfast for Life

January 16, 2010

(Doors Open and Buffet begins at 9:30 a.m. - Program starts at 10:00 a.m.)

Holiday Inn Brownstone Hotel and Conference Center

1707 Hillsborough Street, Raleigh, NC

The cost for the breakfast is $30/person, $50/married couple, $25/students,

clergy, and seniors. Registrations can be made using MC/VISA/DISCOVER

by calling 1-800-392-6275.

To pay by check or money order, write NCRTL,

PO Box 9282, Greensboro, N. C. 27429-0282.

Featured Speaker:

Angela Franks, Ph. D., Author of Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Legacy: The

Control of Female Fertility (2005)

Angela Franks, Ph.D., has a doctorate in theology from Boston College and an M.A. in philosophy from the Catholic University of America. She served, with her husband David, as the coordinator for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference Marriage Initiative, entitled The Future Depends on Love, and they co-hosted a series of the same name on CatholicTV. Currently she and David are the associate directors for the Master of Arts in Ministry program of St. John’s seminary, and she teaches college courses in theology for several institutions. Angela is in demand as a speaker, author, and teacher. She is the author of Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility (2005). She writes and speaks on abortion, eugenics, the theology of the body, marriage, Humanae vitae, the life issues, and feminism, among other topics. She and David are the proud parents of four children.

_____________________________________________________________

2010 Annual Rally and March for Life

January 16, 2010

1:00 p.m.

Nash Square, Raleigh, NC

Featured Speakers:

Angela Franks. Ph. D., Author of Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Legacy: The

Control of Female Fertility (2005) and Deanna Jones, Author of To Be a

Mother...Adopting God's Heart, will be the featured speakers.

Alyse Player will be the featured vocalist

at both events.

(corner of Hargett and McDowell Streets, Raleigh, NC)

INTERACTIVE MAP FOR RALEIGH

Join other pro-lifers to stand up for life and to display proudly your church or school banner in support of life.

For information or to register for the breakfast: NCRTL 800-392-6275

National Right to Life Statement on latest pro-abortion ploy by U. S. Democratic Leadership

2009-11-05T13:10:00.000-05:00

WASHINGTON (November 4, 2009, 7 PM EST) – The House Democratic leadership today announced that it will propose a "Rule" on the health care bill, H.R. 3962, that will insert language proposed by Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-In.), and exclude a House vote on an amendment proposed by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mi.). The House is expected to vote on the "rule" late Friday or early Saturday. The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of right-to-life organizations in all 50 states, supports the Stupak Amendment and opposes the pro-abortion Ellsworth-Waxman-Pelosi language. NRLC issued the following statement, which may be attributed to NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson.

"Any House member who votes for the Pelosi rule is voting to establish a federal government insurance plan, the public option, that the bill explicitly authorizes to pay for all elective abortions. When a federal agency pays for abortions, that is federal funding of abortion in reality, whatever contrived labels Speaker Pelosi or her acolytes slap over it. The Ellsworth language is a political fig leaf made out of cellophane -- it directs the federal Secretary of Health to hire a contractor to deliver to abortion providers the payments for elective abortions, payments that are explicitly authorized by the bill [on page 110]. This is a money-laundering scheme -- a federally funded 'bag man' will deliver government funds to abortionists. This is federal funding of elective abortion."

Additional documentation is posted at http://www.nrlc.org/ahc

White House, Congressional Democratic Leaders push for October votes on pro-abortion health care bills!

2009-10-21T18:21:00.001-04:00

For suggestions on how you can take immediate and effective action on this issue, scroll to the bottom of this update.

WASHINGTON (Updated October 14, 2009) – Both houses of Congress are pushing towards votes on sweeping "health care reform" bills that currently contain far-reaching pro-abortion provisions -- perhaps as early as the week of October 26, or in early November.

Despite public statements by President Obama that "no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions," all of the major bills under consideration would put the federal government into the business of subsidizing elective abortion on a huge scale -- which would be a drastic break from longstanding federal policy.

The bills are being pushed hard by President Obama and by top Democratic congressional leaders, including pro-abortion House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.). The Democrats hold majority control of both the House and the Senate, occupying about three-fifths of the seats in each house.

In the House of Representatives, three committees have approved a massive bill (H.R. 3200) after voting down NRLC-backed amendments to prevent the bills from mandating coverage of abortions and to prevent federal subsidies for abortions, as only a few Democrats joined the minority Republican members in support of the amendments.

On one of those three committees, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the pro-abortion side narrowly won adoption of a "phony compromise" amendment written by staff to Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Ca.) and offered by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Ca.). (Both Waxman and Capps have solidly pro-abortion career records.) The Capps-Waxman Amendment would explicitly authorize coverage of all elective abortions under a new nationwide insurance plan run by the federal government (the "public plan"), and also would allow federal subsidies to flow to private insurance plans that cover elective abortions.

The pro-abortion members of the committee voted down an NRLC-backed amendment offered by Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) to prohibit federal subsidies from going to plans that cover elective abortions. Congressman Stupak has vowed that he will demand a vote on the pro-life amendment on the House floor, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Ca.) and other top House Democratic leaders have indicated that they do not intend to allow the House to vote on such an amendment.

Pelosi and other top Democratic House leaders are currently crafting a revised version of H.R. 3200, behind closed doors, which they will attempt to bring to the House floor as soon as they think they have secured sufficient votes to pass it. No House Republican has yet endorsed the legislation, which means that it cannot pass if as few as 40 of the 256 House Democrats withhold support from it.

Meanwhile, in the Senate, two committees have approved sweeping health care bills. Senate Majority Leader Reid and a handful of Democratic senators, in consultation with the White House, are now creating a combined bill behind closed doors, which Reid says he hopes to bring to the Senate floor as early as the week of October 26. Since both of the committees rejected all pro-life amendments, it is certain that the Reid bill will contain pro-abortion components. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and other pro-life senators will seek to remove the pro-abortion elements through amendments on the Senate floor.

The two bills that are now to be combined are the "Affordable Health Choices Act" (S. 1679), approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee on July 15, and the "America's Healthy Future Act" (as yet unnumbered), approved by the Senate Finance Committee on October 13.

"The bill approved by the Senate HELP Committee would result in the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade," said NRLC Legislative Director Johnson. "It would result in federally mandated coverage of abortion by nearly all health plans, federally mandated recruitment of abortionists by local health networks, and nullification of many state abortion laws. It would also result in federal funding of abortion on a massive scale."

The Senate Finance Committee also contains an array of pro-abortion provisions, including language authorizing new federal subsidies to help pay for private health plans that cover elective abortions.

Obtaining broad federal subsidies for abortion as part of “health care reform” is currently the top priority of many pro-abortion organizations, such as the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). These organizations are pushing for the abortion mandates both in public statements and in less visible lobbying efforts. In April, the president of PPFA said that her organization intends to use the health care legislation as a "platform" to guarantee "access" to abortion to "all women." Likewise, the National Abortion Federation, an association of abortion providers, said, "NAF supports health care reform as a way to increase access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including abortion care, for all women."

On July 17, 2007, during Barack Obama's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, he appeared before the annual conference of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Speaking of his plans for "health care reform," Obama said, "in my mind, reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care, and so it is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose." He stated that, "What we're doing is to say that we're going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don't have health insurance. It'll be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services." Under his plan, Obama explained, people could choose to keep their existing private health care plans, but "insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care ... that's going to be absolutely vital." (You can view a video of Obama's remarks here. You can view a review of what Obama said by the independent group Politifact.com here.

NRLC has actively challenged misinformation about the health care bills in newspapers and websites across the land. To see some recent examples, "They Say, We Say," click here.

To view or download a two-page summary of key points, click here (PDF file). To view a memorandum explaining why the current law called the Hyde Amendment will not prevent government funding of abortion under H.R. 3200, click here. To view a memorandum rebutting the myth that only "private" funds would be used to pay for the abortions, click here.

What You Can Do Now

* Please take a few minutes to use the form here to send messages to your two U.S. senators and to your representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, to urge them to oppose the health care bills backed by the White House because they would create a new government insurance plan that would cover abortion, and would provide subsidies to private health plans that provide abortions. You can modify the suggested message as you see fit. When you fill in your mailing address, your messages will automatically be directed to the appropriate U.S. House member and to your two U.S. senators.

* In addition, please TELEPHONE the offices of your two U.S. senators, give your name and address, and tell the senators' staff persons that you wish to be recorded as "opposed to the health care bills that have been crafted by the two Senate committees, because both bills contain pro-abortion provisions, including subsidies for insurance plans that cover elective abortion." The offices of any U.S. senator can be reached through 202-224-3121. Also, please TELEPHONE the office of your U.S. House member, give your name and address, and inform the staff person that you wish to be recorded as "opposed to the health bill backed by the White House, H.R. 3200, because it would create a government health plan that would cover abortion, and because it would provide massive subsidies that could be used to purchase private health insurance plans that cover abortion." You can reach any U.S. House member's office through 202-225-3121. You can also find the direct-dial numbers (and fax numbers) for the Washington and in-state offices of your U.S. senators and U.S. House member by calling up their individual profiles on this website, here.

* Also, please send short letters to the "letters to the editor" features of your local newspapers, in order to alert your fellow pro-life citizens to the pro-abortion policies that the Obama White House and the pro-abortion lobby are trying to smuggle into law through "health care reform." You can find contact information for your local news media in our "Media Guide" here. You can get a two-page summary of key points here.

(Taken from Action Alert at http://www.nrlactioncenter.com/)

North Carolina Right to Life (NCRTL), as the state affiliate of National Right to Life (NRLC), urges all North Carolinians to take seriously this alert and to take action, especially by contacting Senator Kay Hagan, a member of the H.E.L.P. committee who voted against the NRLC amendments which NCRTL also supported. Use the form at the link provided to send her a message that you want abortion explicitly excluded from any health care bill.

ABORTION IN HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION -- THE COMING PHONY COMPROMISE (VERSION 2)

2009-10-06T13:31:00.003-04:00

Here are a few comments from NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson on the October 2 Denver Post article that we have pasted in below:

(1) It is unfortunate that the Denver Post article does not mention the "public plan" problem, which is very important, and separate and distinct from the premium-subsidy problem. Nevertheless, there is some good reporting work reflected in the Denver Post story. Take special note of this sentence: "Democratic leaders, including Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, are trying to work out a compromise with a small group of anti-abortion Democrats that would strengthen the Capp amendment language but fall short of the wholesale restrictions Stupak and allies want." Translation: Speaker Pelosi and Waxman are working on cosmetic changes to the Capps Amendment, which they will then try to peddle as an even-more-generous "compromise" by the pro-abortion side (but which in reality will put the federal government into the elective abortion business in both the public plan and the premium subsidy program). In any such new twist on the Waxman-Capps scam, we can expect that a prominent role will be assigned to Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), who impersonates a pro-life congressman, but who actually does the bidding of Planned Parenthood, Third Way, and Nancy Pelosi.

(2) In a the rebuttal to a pro-Capps piece by Jessica Arons of the Center for American Progress, I wrote, "In recent days, more than 30 House Democrats have written to Speaker Pelosi to point out that the Capps Amendment just won't do. The House Democratic leadership now has some people working on gluing on some additional trim and accessories so that they can try to peddle Capps II as a new model. But under the hood, it will still be the same old clunker."

(3) If this is a subject that interests you, you might also want to check out the September 30 NRLC release, "National Right to Life says new events in Congress further uncover pro-abortion agenda in health care bills," and "The Truth About 'The Truth About the Capps Amendment'," on The Hill blog.

For further information:
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington, D.C.
202-626-8820
Legfederal@aol.com
http://www.nrlc.org/
http://stoptheabortionagenda.com/

[Denver Post story follows]
http://www.denverpost.com/nationalpolitics/ci_13467146
the health debate
Abortion latest snag in health reform
The issue is federal subsidies for policies that cover it. The Senate is drawing lines, too.
By Michael Riley
The Denver Post
Posted: 10/02/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT

WASHINGTON — Abortion emerged this week as the latest incendiary in the minefield of health care reform, sending negotiators scurrying to find an elusive patch of middle ground to save overhaul legislation.
The danger became apparent after Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., announced he had a commitment from 40 House Democrats to oppose a bill unless it prevents insurance purchased with federal subsidies from covering abortions. Two key Democratic senators said they would push a similar provision when the reform bill is debated on the floor in the Senate.

The 190-member Pro Choice Caucus in the House fired back Thursday, threatening to vote down reform legislation if those restrictions are applied. "That's a vast expansion of restrictions on choice, and I don't think that's right," said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., the Pro Choice Caucus co-chair. "We are not going to vote for a final bill that further restricts a woman's right to choose, period."

Congressional experts say there is a bit of political gamesmanship in all this, but they also concede that the issue is combustible enough that the outcome is unpredictable. Adding to the difficulty is that it appears the room for compromise is razor-thin. Indeed, this week's blow-up came only after the failure of negotiations between Stupak and DeGette that lasted most of the summer, said DeGette, who is also vice chair of the committee that wrote a large part of health care reform in the House.

"This is clearly a very emotional issue for the two sides," said William Pierce, a health care expert and lobbyist who is following the congressional debate closely. "A solution will be found. What that solution is, I can't tell you that right now." At the heart of the matter is a longstanding truce between the sides in the abortion debate that prevents federal money from being used to pay for abortions.

Health care reform measures in both the House and the Senate provide federal subsidies for low-income families to buy insurance. If those subsidies are used to buy policies that pay for abortions, anti-abortion forces argue, then federal money would effectively pay for those procedures. House negotiators had hoped to resolve the problem with an accounting trick. An amendment passed just before the August recess requires insurance companies to keep the subsidized portion of the premium separate from the portion paid for with private dollars. Reimbursements to doctors for abortions could come only from the second pot.

"It's a hoax," Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, said of what is known as the Capp amendment. "You would have the federal government engaged big-time in the abortion business" under the amendment. The other side is just as adamant.

If federal subsidies couldn't be used for policies that cover abortion, insurance companies worried about losing those customers would stop offering policies that cover the procedure altogether, abortion-rights forces say. That would mean the elimination of private policies that cover abortions, they say. "There might be language that could help strengthen the Capp amendment and give more of our members a feeling of comfort, but still not upset the balance," DeGette said.

The spat has threatened to upend the momentum of negotiations. Democratic leaders, including Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, are trying to work out a compromise with a small group of anti-abortion Democrats that would strengthen the Capp amendment language but fall short of the wholesale restrictions Stupak and allies want.

If enough Democrats can be peeled away from that group, Democrats think they can save the bill, DeGette said. "Having seen enough of these big debates about big issues, this is what happens," said Pierce, who was a Capitol Hill staffer during some of the most intense health care debates of the past two decades. "They go along, they look good, then boom — some issue pops up that has not been dealt with."

"But in the end, the president is going to say, 'I need the health care reform bill on my desk,' " he said. "The Democrats in the anti-abortion group are going to be asking themselves the same question as the pro-choice guys: 'Am I going to be willing to kill the bill over this?' "

Michael Riley: 303-954-1614 or mriley@denverpost.com

DEATH SPIRAL REMAINS AFTER PARTY-LINE VOTE

2009-10-01T21:04:00.000-04:00

Kyl Amendment defeated 13-10 in Senate Finance Committee

WASHINGTON – In a 13-10 party-line vote last night, the Senate Finance Committee rejected an amendment by Senator Jon Kyl (R-Az.) to remove a provision in the health care restructuring bill establishing that for at least five years, Medicare physicians who authorize treatments for their patients that wind up in the top 10% of per capita cost for a year will lose 5% of their total Medicare reimbursements for that year.

“Last night’s vote in the Senate Finance Committee should put America’s senior citizens on alert: if the death spiral provision actually becomes law, their Medicare providers will start a race to the bottom to avoid being captured in the top ten percent,” said Burke Balch, J.D., director of National Right to Life’s Powell Center for Medical Ethics. “Older Americans who rely on Medicare would be faced with fewer and less-effective treatment options. This is among the most insidious provisions for rationing in any of the health care bills before Congress."

The provision, on pages 80-81 of the "Chairman’s Mark," (documentation available here) drives all doctors treating older people to try to order fewer and less effective tests and treatments for fear that they will be caught in that top 10%. "It is noteworthy that this feature operates independently of any considerations of quality, efficiency, or waste - if you authorize enough treatment for your patients, however necessary and appropriate it may be, you are in danger of being one of the 1 in 10 doctors who will be penalized each year," Balch said. "Moreover, it creates a moving target - by definition, there will ALWAYS be a top 10%, no matter how far down the total amount of money spent on Medicare is driven."

As National Right to Life Executive Director David N. O’Steen, Ph.D., has previously noted, “It's like a game of musical chairs, in which there is always one chair less than the number of players – so no matter how fast the contestants run, someone will always be the loser when the music stops.”

Although Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) voted against the Kyl Amendment because he disagreed with its budget offsets (required under the committee’s rules), he earlier said, "As I try to put my feet in the shoes of a doctor, I don’t know how you separate out overutilization that is really overutilization. There is no way of knowing when you go through the year, what you are going to do at the end of the year." He warned that the provision could come back to "haunt us" in a few years.

The National Right to Life Committee, the nation’s largest pro-life group, is a federation of affiliates in all 50 states and 3,000 local chapters nationwide.

NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE SAYS NEW EVENTS IN CONGRESS FURTHER UNCOVER PRO-ABORTION AGENDA IN HEALTH CARE BILLS

2009-09-30T19:05:00.000-04:00

WASHINGTON (September 30, 2009) -- Events this week in Congress provide fresh proof that top Democratic leaders in Congress are pushing forward with plans to establish massive new programs that would pay for elective abortions and subsidize insurance coverage of abortions -- which, if achieved, would break from decades of federal policy.

"Bills currently advancing in Congress would establish direct federal funding of elective abortion, and tax subsidies for private insurance that covers elective abortions -- both drastic breaks from longstanding federal policy," commented Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of right-to-life organizations in all 50 states. "Ongoing events on Capitol Hill demonstrate the hollowness of President Obama's public assurances that he does not seek government funding of abortion."

The Senate Finance Committee today continued a series of meetings to amend the "America's Healthy Future Act," a health care restructuring bill proposed by Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mt.). The bill has a number of major abortion-related problems. Most of today's abortion-related debate in the committee focused on a proposed new program that would use tax money to help purchase private health insurance for about 19 million Americans. The bill specifically authorizes the use of these federal funds to pay premiums on private plans that cover elective abortions -- a departure from longstanding federal policy.

Pro-life Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) pointed out that federal subsidies for coverage of elective abortions are not currently allowed under Medicaid, the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, or other federal health programs. Hatch offered an amendment, backed by NRLC, that would have prohibited federal funds from subsidizing plans that cover elective abortions, but would have allowed insurers to sell abortion coverage through separate supplemental policies not subsidized by federal funds. The Hatch Amendment failed, 10-13. Baucus and all other Democrats on the committee opposed the Hatch Amendment, except for Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), who supported it. All of the Republicans on the committee supported the Hatch Amendment, except for Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who opposed it.

By an identical roll call, the committee also rejected another Hatch Amendment that would have codified the Hyde-Weldon Amendment, which is a temporary law prohibiting any level of government from discriminating against health-care providers that do not wish to participate in providing abortions.

On July 15, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee approved a different health care bill (S. 1679), which also contains provisions that would result in sweeping pro-abortion mandates and government subsidies for elective abortion. NRLC's Johnson commented, "Today's Finance Committee votes mean that the combined bill that will reach the Senate floor in a few weeks surely will contain provisions that would result in both pro-abortion federal mandates and huge federal abortion subsidies. However, the full Senate must vote on the pro-abortion subsidies, and other pro-abortion components as well."

Meanwhile, in the House, Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mi.), Joseph Pitts (R-Pa.), and 181 other members of the U.S. House on September 28 sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.), pointing out that the health care bill approved in the House Energy and Commerce Committee (H.R. 3200), including an amendment offered by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Ca.), "radically departs from the current federal government policy of not paying for elective abortion or subsidizing plans that cover abortion." The letter notes, among other things, that the Capps language "explicitly authorizes the federal government (the Department of Health and Human Services) to directly fund elective abortions, with federal (public) funds drawn on a federal Treasury account," through the proposed "public plan."

The signers -- 25 Democrats and 158 Republicans -- urged Pelosi to allow a vote on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to prohibit coverage of elective abortions by the public plan and subsidies for private plans that cover elective abortions. Seven other House Democrats have sent Pelosi similar letters in recent days, for a total of 32 Democrats.

In response, on September 29 Rep. Capps sent Pelosi a letter in which she argued that the proposed public plan really would not be paying for abortions because "money is transmitted to a private contractor who then reimburses physicians." Johnson called Capps' argument "truly laughable -- it is like arguing that it is not the government paying for the abortions if the government sends the payment via the Internet."

In reality, Johnson said, "The proposed public plan will be entirely a branch of the federal government, all of its funds will be federal funds, and when it pays for abortions, that will be direct government funding of abortion."

Johnson also noted that the nearly united opposition to the Hatch Amendment by Senate Finance Committee Democrats, and the continued resistance by the House Democratic leadership to allowing a vote on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, "support our theory that President Obama is misleading the public when he says he does not want federal dollars used for abortion. In an attempt to keep his 2007 promises to Planned Parenthood, the President is trying to smuggle sweeping pro-abortion policies into law behind smokescreens of contrived language, verbal misdirection, and outright misrepresentation."

OKLAHOMA LAWSUIT BETRAYS WOMEN

2009-09-29T20:36:00.000-04:00

Group files suit against Oklahoma's ban on sex-selection abortion and comprehensive abortion-reporting requirements

WASHINGTON -- Today, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed suit against a single-issue abortion law in Oklahoma - set to go into effect on November 1, 2009 - that bans abortion for the purpose of sex-selection and that enhances the state's abortion-reporting requirements. The law was passed by large majorities in the Oklahoma legislature and signed by Governor Brad Henry in May.

"It is absurd, bordering on incredible, that an organization that says it cares about 'women's rights' would challenge a law that seeks to help women and their children," said Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D., National Right to Life director of state legislation. "It is unfortunate, even in this enlightened age of women, that many cultures here and abroad favor males over females. With this sex-selection ban, the state of Oklahoma has declared that female children are valued as highly as male children."

In addition to the ban on sex-selection abortion, the abortion law also contains the nation's most comprehensive abortion-reporting provisions which seek to analyze, among other things, the reasons women seek abortion in the first place.

"Abortion is the most under-regulated, under-investigated, and under-researched procedure done on American women today, yet it is the most common and most potentially dangerous to their health and well-being," Balch added. "If a state can get a handle on the reasons women have abortions, it can lead to better programs that will make it easier for women to have their children rather than resort to abortion."

The text of the law is available here: http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10bills/HB/HB1595_ENR.RTF.

The case is Davis v. W.A. Drew Edmondson.

The National Right to Life Committee, the nation’s largest pro-life group is a federation of affiliates in all 50 states and 3,000 local chapters nationwide. NRLC, 512 10th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20004

Nat Hentoff's Article: Health bill's Deadly Fine Print

2009-09-25T13:21:00.001-04:00

I am postponing my second column on the direct complicity of doctors and psychologists during the CIA's torturing of terrorism suspects because of the sudden disclosure that, in the influential Senate Finance Committee's health-care bill, there is a dangerous provision that could deny crucial health treatments for Medicare patients.

This is the much-publicized and debated Baucus bill, named for Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus. In its news section, the Wall Street Journal reported (Sept. 17) that this bill "breaks a logjam and is likely to form the core of a bill in the full Senate."

During the continuous, extensive coverage of this proposed legislation, there has been only very limited mention – and none I've seen in the mainstream press – of a section that penalizes doctors for Medicare patients who, for at least five years (from 2015 to 2020), authorize total treatments that wind up in the top 10 percent of national annual Medicare costs per patient.

The 1 in 10 Medicare doctors who spend beyond this limit will themselves lose 5 percent of their own total Medicare reimbursements. Considering the already low rates Medicare doctors get – and the president pledges they will get lower – this could be a heavy penalty.

As Burke Balch, director of the National Right to Life's Center for Medical Ethics, says: "This (part of the Baucus bill) means that all doctors treating older people will constantly be driven to try to order the least-expensive tests and treatments for fear they will be caught in that top 10 percent. Note that this feature operates independently of any considerations of quality, efficiency or waste. If you authorize enough treatment for your patients, however necessary and appropriate it may be, you are in danger of being one of the 1 in 10 doctors who will be penalized each year."

There is, however, in the Baucus bill what seems to be an exception to this iron mandate for reducing medical-care costs that indeed is not related to quality of care, while aiming solely at reducing the national debt. There is a section (page 80, the Chairman's Mark) that gives Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of health and human services, permission to adjust these strictures for "those physicians who tend to serve less healthy individuals who may require more intensive interventions."

But what is submerged in here is the cold fact that even if a Medicare doctor does apply this permission in treating certain patients, as he considers necessary, the pressures will continue – with regard to his entire cumulative roster of other Medicare patients – to keep very much in mind that he or she may still be in peril of winding up at the end of a year in the punishable top 10 percent of annual Medicare costs per patient.

To bring Balch back into the conversation concerning the actual effects of the 10 percent health penalty on real-life patients, as well as doctors, he points out that this penalty for Medicare doctors "creates a moving target."

"By definition," Balch said, "there will always be a top 10 percent, no matter how far down the total amount of money spent on Medicare is driven." Say that 2015, the top 10 percent is anything over $10,000 per patient. In 2016, most doctors will scramble to hold down the treatments they authorize to avoid breaking that limit."

But the real possibility, as a result, is that the total annual amount of that limit will drop. So next year, doctors will try to avoid being in the penalty box for anything they authorize over $9,500. Burke Balch adds:
"As the process repeats, the next year might be anything over $9,000. The year after that anything over $8,000, and so on. It's a game of musical chairs, in which there is always one chair less than the number of players. No matter how fast the contestants run, someone will always be the loser when the music stops."

But Medicare doctors will not be the only losers. As the doctors struggle to keep abreast of the continually falling limit of the money they can authorize for their contingent of patients, consider what those patients will lose in the quality of their treatment.

The bluntest assessment of this approach to health-care "reform" is by National Right to Life executive director David N. O'Steen: "It takes the telltale fingerprints from the government: Instead of bureaucrats directly specifying the treatment denials that will mean death and poorer health for older people, it compels individual doctors to do the dirty work."

Even if this insidious provision does not survive in the eventual Senate bill, or is excluded from the subsequent House-Senate Conference Committee report on what President Obama will eventually enact into law, its actual existence is a further warning to all of us to pay very close attention to all the health-care "reform" bills before any of them becomes law. For some of us, our very lives may depend on the ultimate statute – not only because of the quality of care we will get, but rather for the nature of our final exit.

An adage that took me many years to understand is that "what the government gives, it can take away." That's why an essential individual responsibility of American citizenship is to keep a close eye on your government at all times.

Nat Hentoff is a nationally renowned authority on the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights and author of many books, including "The War on the Bill of Rights and the Gathering Resistance."

Source:
World Net Daily
Posted: September 23, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
Sweet Land of Liberty
Nat Hentoff
Health bill's deadly fine print

PolitiFact adopts odd premises to dispute one NRLC statement about the abortion-related effects of the Baucus health care bill, while approving of another NRLC statement

2009-09-23T18:31:00.000-04:00

WASHINGTON (September 22, 2009) -- On September 21, 2009, PolitiFact released two "Truth-O-Meter" ratings on two statements made by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) about the new health care restructuring bill, the "America's Healthy Future Act," proposed by Senator Max Baucus (D-Mt.). Both statements appeared in the same September 16 NRLC press release. This is the NRLC statement that PolitiFact rated as "true":
The Baucus bill "contains provisions that would send massive federal subsidies directly to both private insurance plans and government-chartered cooperatives that pay for elective abortion."

And this is the NRLC statement that PolitiFact rated as "false":
"Under the Baucus bill...federal funds would subsidize coverage of elective abortions."

PolitiFact reached these seemingly contradictory conclusions by buying into the fiction that the federal government can use federal funds to help purchase private health insurance plans that cover elective abortions, and yet not "subsidize coverage of elective abortions." This is the kind of argument that most journalists and policymakers would not accept for one minute if it was advanced by a private entity that wished to receive a federal subsidy while continuing to engage in activities that are contrary to federal public policy with respect to, for example, race discrimination (e.g., the federal tax exemption at stake in the famous Bob Jones University case) or sex discrimination (e.g., Grove City College, in another famous case in which the federal subsidy consisted of individual students who had received Pell grants).

Likewise, the Hyde Amendment and similar laws embody a policy view that abortion is a bad thing, to be discouraged. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that no constitutional principle is violated when the government advances "a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion, and . . . implement[ing] that judgment by the allocation of public funds" (Maher v. Roe), and "by means of unequal subsidization of abortion and other medical services, encourages alternative activity deemed in the public interest" (Harris v. McRae, upholding the Hyde Amendment).

We believe that when the federal government pays for insurance, the federal government pays for what the insurance pays for. Therefore, since the Baucus bill would spend federal funds to pay part of the premium cost of private plans that cover elective abortion, the federal government would indeed be subsidizing "coverage of elective abortions," regardless of how the insurer keeps his books.

The various PolitiFact articles about the abortion-related controversies in the health care bills are consolidated on one page here. If you read them all you may get vertigo, because PolitiFact's understanding of these matters is sophisticated on some points, but shallow and muddled on others. Even now, it appears that they have not completely grasped that under the House bill (H.R. 3200), as amended by the Capps Amendment, the "public plan" would be explicitly authorized to cover elective abortions, and that the funds used to pay for the abortions would be legally and in every ordinary use of the term "federal funds" -- thus, the "public plan" would be engaged in direct federal funding of abortion on demand.

In other words, the House bill explicitly authorizes direct federal funding of elective abortion, through the public plan, and this problem is entirely separate and distinct from the problems that arise from the premium-subsidy program. Since PolitiFact still doesn't fully recognize that, it is not too surprising that they are confused about the more complicated Baucus arrangement.

Part of PolitiFact's ongoing confusion may be the product of a faulty and arbitrary premise, found in this statement in the next-to-last paragraph in this article: ". . . we think the court of common sense says that if someone claims abortion would be subsidized with federal funds, it suggests more federal tax dollars would pour into plans that cover abortion."

This "more federal tax dollars" test is misconceived and indeed untenable. Before the Hyde Amendment took effect in 1977, the federal Medicaid program was paying for 300,000 elective abortions a year, but under this arbitrary PolitiFact definition, the federal Medicaid program never actually "subsidized abortion with federal funds"! That's because the federal Medicaid program saved money every time it paid for an abortion, because it is much cheaper to kill an unborn child than to pay for prenatal care and childbirth.

According to a 2007 article, the average cost of prenatal care and childbirth for a Medicaid client is $6,719. The average cost of a first-trimester abortion is under $500. The figures were lower in earlier decades, but the ratio was roughly the same. So when the federal Medicaid program paid for an abortion, it saved Medicaid money. Still, it requires the use of very tortured logic and a contrived terminology to deny that the federal Medicaid program was subsidizing abortion prior to the enactment of the Hyde Amendment.

We hope that the PolitiFact editors will reconsider the practice of filtering our discourse through their fallacious assumptions about what they think the pro-life side is trying to achieve or what they think we are implying, rather than looking at what we actually say and at the meaning of words like "subsidize" and "federal funds" as they appear in standard reference sources, unrelated to the current debate over abortion policy. Contrary to the perhaps unconscious assumption that the PolitiFact reporters and editors seem to be imposing on this debate, the Hyde Amendment and similar pro-life amendments were not advanced to save "tax dollars." They were advanced to save lives.

When we now talk about the provisions of the various health care bills, using definitions of "subsidy" and "federal funds" that have long been accepted with respect to innumerable government programs, we are not engaged in falsehood. The skeptical scrutiny ought to fall on those who, in order to advance their goal of having the government begin subsidizing abortion-covering plans, want to impose novel and contrived definitions of what constitutes a "subsidy" and what constitutes "federal funds."

When the government helps pay for insurance, the government subsidizes coverage of whatever the insurance covers. When the federal government gives money to a health insurer to help pay for a plan that covers elective abortion, it is indeed a subsidy of elective abortion coverage, in the ordinary English meaning of the term "subsidy," even if the cost to the government is the same as the subsidy that would be paid for some other plan that does not cover abortion.

Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
512-10th Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20004
202-626-8820
Legfederal@aol.com
http://www.nrlc.org/

To obtain key documents about the abortion mandates and abortion subsidies in the current health care bills: http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/Index.html

They say, National Right to Life says:

2009-09-22T11:47:00.001-04:00

WASHINGTON (September 18, 2009) -- The pro-abortion public relations machine is in full throttle in support of the abortion-related components of the health care bills that are being pushed by the White House and top congressional Democrats.

1. A detailed outline of Senator Max Baucus' proposed health care bill was released on September 16. The proposal has many objectionable components pertaining to both abortion and rationing. The initial NRLC statement on the bill and a follow up release on the "death spiral" provision is at http://www.nrlactioncenter.com/.

2. Over the last few days, a number of websites, including Huffington Post, The Hill, and RHRealityCheck.org, have published an essay by Congresswoman Lois Capps (D-Ca.) titled, "The Truth About the Capps Amendment." We recommend that you read the piece on RHRealityCheck.org, at http://www.nrlactioncenter.com/. That site has a permissive comment policy, and NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson has challenged Rep. Capps in a detailed rebuttal.

3. The Baltimore Sun ran (twice!) an op ed by Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) President Cecile Richards, titled, "Plan Wouldn't Fund Abortion," most recently on September 13. A rebuttal by NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson titled "Planned Parenthood's Hidden Agenda on Health Reform" was submitted to the Sun but ignored. However, on September 16, the Winona (Mn.) Daily News, which also ran the original Richards piece, published the rebuttal, under the title "What Does Cecile Richards Really Want?," at http://www.nrlactioncenter.com/.

4. Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus did her bit for the Capps Amendment in a column that ran in the Post on September 9, and subsequently in some other papers. National Review Online published on September 9 a rebuttal by NRLC's Douglas Johnson. You can read it at http://www.nrlactioncenter.com/.

5. Laurie Rubiner, vice president for public policy and advocacy for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), posted an essay titled "Bridging the Divide on Health Care for Women," dated September 9, 2009, on Daily Kos, and on RHRealityCheck.org, where a detailed rebuttal by NRLC's Douglas Johnson was posted, http://www.nrlactioncenter.com/.

6. Veteran pro-abortion activist Frances Kissling posted an essay on several websites, "Exploiting the Health Care Debate to Restrict Abortion." The thrust of Kissling's essay was that the pro-abortion side had already compromised enough and that no further concessions should be made to the right-to-life side. A rebuttal by NRLC's Douglas Johnson was posted on RHRealityCheck.org on September 16. You can read it at http://www.nrlactioncenter.com/.

7. On September 11, http://www.politifact.com/ examined in detail, and rated as "True," the following statement by House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Oh.): "During his quest for the presidency, now-President Obama declared that everyone deserves access to reproductive health care that includes abortion, and vowed that this 'right' would be at the heart of his health care reform plan if elected president." You can read about this at http://www.nrlactioncenter.com/.

8. In light of some of the press coverage of recent days, it is evident that NRLC's September 8 "duped media" advisory remains timely and should be required reading for journalists who are covering the congressional fight.
_________________________________

For further information:
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)
Washington, D.C.
202-626-8820
Legfederal@aol.com
http://www.nrlc.org/ahc
http://stoptheabortionagenda.com/
To go to the Abortion in Health Care index, click here.
To go to the NRLC Home page, click here.
To go to the NRLC Legislative Action Center, click here.

Baucus bill contains "an array of pro-abortion mandates and federal subsidies for elective abortion," and provisions that "will gravely endanger the lives of America's senior citizens."

2009-09-16T23:26:00.000-04:00

WASHINGTON -- The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the nation's largest pro-life group comprised of 50 state right-to-life organizations and about 3,000 local chapters, today reacted to the new bill issued by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mt.).
ABORTION MANDATES AND FEDERAL SUBSIDIES

The following statement may be attributed to Douglas Johnson, NRLC legislative director: The "America's Healthy Future Act," proposed today by Senator Max Baucus (D-Mt.), contains an array of pro-abortion mandates and federal subsidies for elective abortion. National Right to Life strongly opposes the legislation in its current form. We will work in support of amendments to eliminate the abortion mandates and federal abortion subsidies.

The bill contains provisions that would send massive federal subsidies directly to both private insurance plans and government-chartered cooperatives that pay for elective abortion. This would be a drastic break from longstanding federal policy, under which federal funds do not pay for elective abortions or subsidize health plans that cover elective abortions. For example, current law prohibits any of the over 250 private health plans that participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program from paying for elective abortions, because these plans receive federal subsidies. These private plans cover over 8 million federal employees and dependents, including members of Congress.

Thus, under the Baucus bill, like the House Democratic leadership bill (H.R. 3200), federal funds would subsidize coverage of elective abortions. In addition, the Baucus bill requires that a specific charge must be included in the premiums paid by those who enroll in such subsidized plans, of at least "$1 per enrollee, per month," which amounts to a surcharge specifically for elective abortions.

These bills are not consistent with President Obama's September 9 claim that "no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions," or with Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius's September 13 affirmation that "no public funds would go to fund abortions." Funds spent by federal agencies are, by law, federal funds. The claim that under these bills, a federal agency would use "private funds" to subsidize abortions is absurd on its face -- a political hoax.

In addition, the Baucus bill provides $6 billion in federal funds for the establishment of health insurance cooperatives, without any limitation on the use of these funds to pay for abortions or to subsidize plans that pay for elective abortions. In addition, the Baucus bill contains language that would allow the federal government to declare abortion to be a "mandated benefit as part of a minimum benefits package" in any circumstances in which the federal Medicaid program could pay for an abortion. Currently, the federal Medicaid program pays for abortion only in three limited circumstances: to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest. But that limitation depends on language, the Hyde Amendment, that expires every September 30, and that must be renewed annually as part of the Health and Human Services appropriations bill. Under the Baucus language, if one house of Congress, and/or the President, blocked renewal of the Hyde Amendment, many private insurance plans could be forced to include abortion on demand as a mandatory benefit in the minimum benefits package. This would be another major departure from the status quo. (Currently, only 13 percent of all abortions are billed directly to private insurance, according to the Guttmacher Institute.)

HEALTH CARE RATIONING

In addition to the abortion funding provisions described above, the bill also contains important elements that would greatly impact the ability of patients to receive unrationed medical care. The following statement may be attributed to David N. O'Steen, Ph.D., NRLC executive director: With respect to rationing, the proposal contains a Medicare provision that, beginning in 2015, would severely financially penalize physicians who are in the top 10% of medical resource use. This provision does not link funding to outcomes or quality; instead, it will force a "race to the bottom" with relentless pressure on doctors to limit health care for their older patients. On top of the significant Medicare cuts in the bill, this will gravely endanger the lives of America's senior citizens.

The bill does contain language to prevent the use of comparative effectiveness analysis in a manner that would discriminatorily deny treatment because of age, disability, or terminal illness; however, this language would not affect the financial incentive to ration care as described above.

There are other places in the bill where the Secretary of Health and Human Services is given discretion to regulate the treatment that healthcare providers can give to their patients. NRLC will continue to review the bill and provide further analysis.

The National Right to Life Committee is the nation’s largest pro-life group with affiliates in all 50 states and over 3,000 local chapters nationwide. National Right to Life works through legislation and education to protect those threatened by abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Pregnant North Carolina Teen Shot, 32-Week Old Unborn Child in Critical Condition

2009-09-14T22:46:00.000-04:00

Charlotte, NC (LifeNews.com) -- A pregnant 15-year-old girl was shot and killed Monday morning while at a bus stop waiting for the school bus. Tiffany Wright was 32 weeks pregnant at the time and her unborn baby girl is reportedly in critical condition at a local hospital following the shooting.
Doctors at the Carolinas Medical Center delivered the baby three hours after the shooting took place.

According to a Charlotte Observer report, Wright was an 11th-grader at Hawthorne High School, which offers a special program for pregnant moms and teen girls with newborns.
Police told the newspaper on this afternoon that they believe the shooting was the result of a domestic dispute and that Wright was found in the street shot in the head at the time officials arrived.

WBTV has more on the story and indicates Wright's grandmother walked her to the bus stop and returned to it after getting her a glass of water and found Wright dead. Ashelee Barber, a niece of Tiffany Wright's foster mother, said the teen had a positive outlook on life despite her pregnancy and was excited about the baby. "She was just a very sweet girl," said Barber to the newspaper. "I assume she was going through a lot of stuff. When people go through tough times, they sometimes develop hateful feelings, but she wasn't that way."
North Carolina, unlike 36 other states, does not have a law on the books allowing prosecutors to charge defendants with killing or injuring the unborn child when they attack a pregnant woman. Although the culprit may serve jail time for the death of or injury to the mother, there is no punishment and no justice for the crime committed against the baby. Pro-life advocates tried to get the legislature to approve HB 890, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, last session.

Police are still looking for a suspect in the shooting and anyone with information is asked to call detectives at 704-432-TIPS or Crime Stoppers, 704-334-1600.

Related web sites:
North Carolina Legislature - http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/
North Carolina Right to Life - http://www.ncrtl.org

Buzz up!

911, Pro-lifer Murdered in Michigan, and Health Care Abortion Funding

2009-09-14T22:39:00.000-04:00

Greensboro, NC-Recently, we mourned the many innocent victims of 911 and renewed our vow never to forget those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001. Enemies of our country used airplanes to kill innocent people in Pennsylvania, New York, and Washington, DC. Each day in America, abortion providers use instruments and drugs to kill innocent unborn babies. We must never forget them and the fact that this killing goes on behind closed doors every day of every year.

Regrettably, 911 will also be a day of remembrance of an elderly pro-life activist with disabilities named Jim Pouillon who was shot as he peacefully sat holding a his pro-life sign across the street from a Michigan high school. He is described as a man who abhorred violence of any kind, especially the violence of abortion. He knew that every day in the United States about 3,500 innocent unborn babies lose their lives to abortion and with each abortion, another mother is scarred forever and families will mourn those they will never know.

Since 1973, 50 million innocent unborn babies have died because of the so-called “right to choose” or “reproductive rights.” Those who support abortion on demand use code words like “reproductive health” and “choice” when they speak about their support for abortion. There is an excellent example of how these code words are used at www.NRLactioncenter.com in a video where Barack Obama speaks to Planned Parenthood.

Now, abortion will be greatly expanded if Barack Obama and the pro-abortion leadership in the Congress get their way. If health care is passed without explicitly excluding abortion, there will federal funding of abortion in a scale that will dwarf the number of abortions previously done annually. We, as people who rightly mourn the thousands who died on 911, mourn also the 50 million unborn children who have died. We must vow to never forget them by working to keep any health care plan from being used to finance with federal funds abortion on demand.

National Right to Life responds to Sebelius comments on ABC's This Week

2009-09-13T13:17:00.000-04:00

Washington, DC - Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, appearing on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, addressed questions pertaining to the effect of health care legislation on abortion policy. George Stephanopoulos has posted a partial transcript of the exchange on his blog at http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/09/sebelius-president-rules-out-public-funding-for-abortion.html.
What follows is a reaction from Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the national federation of right-to-life organizations: "For months, the President, his staff, and his congressional allies have misrepresented actual language in their bills that would result in government funding of elective abortions. The latest statements by Mr. Obama and Ms. Sebelius are most likely a continuation of their strategy of denial, evasion, and distortion. We say, watch what they do, not what they say."
Further details on the ongoing disinformation campaign is found here:
http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/Advisory090809.html

The National Right to Life Committee, the nation's largest pro-life group is a federation of affiliates in all 50 states and 3,000 local chapters nationwide.

OBAMA PERPETUATES ABORTION FUNDING MYTH IN JOINT SESSION ADDRESS

2009-09-10T13:26:00.003-04:00

WASHINGTON, Wednesday, September 9, 2009, 9:30pm Derrick Jones (202) 423-339 (mobile) mediarelations@nrlc.org – In his address to a joint session of Congress tonight, President Obama said, "One more misunderstanding I want to clear up -- under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, commented: "Barack Obama needs to learn that the mere repetition of a verbal formula does not change reality. The reality is that the Obama-backed House bill would explicitly authorize the federal government insurance plan to pay for elective abortions and would explicitly authorize subsidies for private abortion insurance -- and all with federal dollars, which are the only kind of dollars that the federal government can spend."

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) last week released definitive memoranda that demonstrate that (1) the "Hyde Amendment" would not apply to the new programs that would be created by the Obama-backed health bill, H.R. 3200, and (2) that all of the funds that would be spent on elective abortions under the bill, and all of the funds that would be spent to subsidize private insurance plans that cover abortion, would be "federal funds" in both the legal sense and in the sense in which those terms are used throughout the government.
"The claim that a federal agency would be spending private funds on abortion, not federal funds, is absurd on its face, a political hoax," Johnson said.

To read a September 8 NRLC media advisory that summarizes these issues, go to http://www.nrlactioncenter.com/ to read the advisory contains links to the detailed memoranda that disprove the "Hyde Amendment myth" and the "government will spend private funds on abortions myth."

The National Right to Life Committee, the nation's largest pro-life group is a federation of affiliates in all 50 states and 3,000 local chapters nationwide.

Let Us Mourn a Real Hero

2009-09-09T13:44:00.002-04:00

Well said.

NC Right to Life Announces New Chapter

2009-08-28T10:49:00.001-04:00

Triangle Right to Life is the Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill area Chapter of North Carolina Right to Life, a state affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee. The mission of Triangle Right to Life is to protect innocent human life, from conception to natural death from abortion, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, infanticide, and euthanasia/assisted suicide. We support adult stem cell research, adoption, and other positive measures that uphold and protect innocent human life.

Check out some pictures from our ice cream social on July 11, 2009!