Senate passes human trafficking bill

Excerpted from "Senate Passes Human Trafficking Bill With Abortion Restrictions On Victims," Huffington Post. April 22, 2015 — The Senate passed a sex trafficking bill on Wednesday after a bitter, weeks-long fight over an anti-abortion provision tucked into it. The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act passed 99-0.

At its core, the bill has had broad support. It provides resources to law enforcement officials and collects fees from sex traffickers that go into a new fund for victims. But Republicans included language subjecting the victim fund to the Hyde Amendment, the federal provision that bars the use of taxpayer funds for abortions except in cases of rape and incest. Democrats refused to let the bill advance over the Hyde language, particularly because, for the first time, it would have applied to non-taxpayer funds.

It took a month of back-and-forth between Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the bill's author, and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) to find a compromise. They settled on creating two funding streams in the bill. One collects fines from traffickers and uses them for survivor services, excluding health care. That stream doesn't include Hyde restrictions. The second one comes from community health center funds already subject to the abortion limits.

The deal lets both parties walk away with a solid talking point: Democrats can say they prevented an expansion of Hyde, and Republicans can say they prevented victims of sex trafficking from using federal funds for abortions.

Commentary

CMDA Health Consultant on Human Trafficking Jeffrey J. Barrows, DO, MA (Bioethics): “This legislation passed unanimously by the Senate focuses on the trafficking of children under age 18 and will provide many resources should it become law. There are provisions that apply to the healthcare profession, especially those who are “first responders” and healthcare officials. The bill provides grants to train professionals who commonly encounter victims of trafficking on how to identify victims of human trafficking, address their unique needs and facilitate their rescue. Emergency department personnel are a prime example.

“One study has shown that almost 88 percent of victims of domestic sex trafficking regularly encounter healthcare professionals while being trafficked, especially those working within emergency departments.¹ Unfortunately, fewer than three percent of emergency department personnel have been trained on human trafficking and so these victims are rarely identified.²

“CMDA’s Commission on Human Trafficking has addressed the issue of training by developing a series of online educational modules on human trafficking specifically designed for the healthcare profession which can be found at www.cmda.org/tip. In addition, the commission is planning an in-depth training seminar later this year in Atlanta on November 13-14. More information will be forthcoming and registration will be open to anyone who desires to learn more about the interface between healthcare and human trafficking. Any questions about CMDA’s work against human trafficking can be addressed to humantrafficking@cmda.org.

¹Lederer L, Wetzel, CA. The Health Consequences of Sex Trafficking and Their Implications for Identifying Victims in Healthcare Facilities. The Annals of Health Law 2014; 23:61-91.
²Chisholm-Straker M, Richardson LD, Cossio T. Combating Slavery in the 21st century: The role of emergency medicine. J Healthcare for Poor and Underserved 2012; 23:980-987.

Resources

CMDA’s Human Trafficking Ethics Statement
Commission on Human Trafficking
Human Trafficking Continuing Education

Global campaign to protect disabled infants

Excerpted from "Irish group Every Life Counts launches global campaign to end ‘incompatible with life’ label," LifeSiteNews. March 11, 2015 — Irish families have joined with international medical experts and disability advocacy groups to launch the Geneva Declaration on Perinatal Care at the United Nations. The Declaration, which is the centerpiece to a global campaign to end disability discrimination caused by the “incompatible with life” label, has already been signed by more than 200 medical practitioners and researchers and 27 disability and advocacy NGOs. It aims to improve care for mother and baby where a life-limiting condition has been diagnosed before or after birth.

At the event, families from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Canada, Spain and Switzerland said that the label “incompatible with life” was not a medical diagnosis and was causing “lethal discrimination against children diagnosed with severe disabilities, both before and after birth.”

Barbara Farlow, whose ground-breaking research led to a new understanding of the experiences of families where children had a life-limiting condition, said that the label “incompatible with life” had been shown to lead to sub-optimal care after birth and the phrase dehumanised children.

Professor Giuseppe Benegiano, former director of special programmes for the UN, said that the UN should give support for this important initiative against disability discrimination. Professor Bogdan Chazan, an imminent obstetrician from Poland, said that babies with a challenging diagnosis deserved better care than abortion.

Commentary

CMDA Member and Care Net Medical Advisor Sandy Christiansen, MD, FACOG: “The mark of a civilized society is the degree to which it protects its weakest most vulnerable members. Psalm 82:3 admonishes us to ‘Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed’ (NIV 2011). The Geneva Declaration is a beautiful example of the fulfillment of this passage.

“Routine prenatal testing seeks to detect fetal abnormalities before birth. With the discovery of a problem, what choices are offered? Data across the globe report that anywhere from 29 percent to 85 percent of fetuses with Down Syndrome are aborted.¹²³ But some families are choosing a different path and finding joy in the journey. Turning away from the offered termination of pregnancy for a fetal anomaly that has been pronounced ‘incompatible with life,’ some couples have instead chosen to embrace every minute of life their child has—both inside and outside the womb. They face pressure from healthcare professionals to abort and experience lack of understanding from family and friends. Yet, 97 percent of respondents in a 2012 study of families with children with trisomy 13 and 18 described their child as happy and parents reported these children enriched their family.⁴ Their experience was incongruent with the dismal picture predicted by their physicians. The most common negative comment made by parents in this study was a sense that healthcare professionals did not see their baby as having value, as being unique and as being a baby.

“A recent study looked at women who aborted and women who carried after learning their babies were diagnosed with a life-limiting diagnosis. The abortion group experienced more grief, depression and emotional stress, and they also had symptoms consistent with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for up to seven years after the abortion as compared to the women who chose to carry group.

“Evidence is mounting to support the benefits of taking a hands-off approach to a life-limiting prenatal diagnosis and simply allowing couples to spend time with their unborn babies for as long as they have them. As Christian healthcare professionals, we should be prepared to offer families a different option to the default termination solution so often given for an adverse prenatal diagnosis. Words need to be chosen carefully, avoiding terms like ‘incompatible with life;’ instead, we should use words that affirm the baby’s life and value as a human being. Couples who choose to carry their child should be connected to resources that provide the support and understanding they desperately need.

“Perinatal hospice⁵ is a unique solution and can be thought of as ‘hospice in the womb.’ It is easily incorporated into routine prenatal care and birth planning. A team approach can include obstetricians, perinatologists, labor and delivery nurses, NICU staff, chaplains/pastors and social workers, as well as genetic counselors and traditional hospice professionals. It enables families to make meaningful plans for the baby's life, birth and death, honoring everyone.”<sup>6

1</sup>Siffel, C., Correa, A., Cragan, J., & Alverson, C. (2004). Prenatal Diagnosis, Pregnancy Terminations And Prevalence Of Down Syndrome In Atlanta. Birth Defects Research Part A: Clinical and Molecular Teratology, 70(9), 565-571.
²Khoshnood B, De Vigan C, Vodovar V, Goujard J, Goffinet F (2004) A population-based evaluation of the impact of antenatal screening for Down's syndrome in France, 1981–2000. BJOG 111: 485–490.
³Leroi, A. (2006). The future of neo-eugenics. Now that many people approve the elimination of certain genetically defective fetuses, is society closer to screening all fetuses for all known mutations? EMBO Reports, 7(12), 1184-87. Retrieved April 2, 2015, from http://embor.embopress.org/content/7/12/1184.
⁴Janvier A. Farlow B. Wilfond B. (2012)The Experience of Families With Children With Trisomy 13 and 18 in Social Networks Pediatrics Vol. 130:293 -298 (doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-0151).
⁵Hoeldtke, N., & Calhoun, B. (2001). Perinatal Hospice. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 185(3), 525-29.
⁶Calhoun, B., Napolitano, P., Terry, M., Bussey, C., & Hoeldtke, N. (2003). Perinatal hospice. Comprehensive care for the family of the fetus with a lethal condition. Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 48(5), 343-8.

Resources

Perinatal Hospice Resources in the U.S.
CMDA’s Abortion Ethics Statement
CMDA’s Human Life Ethics Statement

Abortion and human trafficking: CMA commentary in Washington Post

Reprinted from “The Hyde Amendment’s effect on human-trafficking victims,” commentary by CMA VP for Govt. Relations Jonathan Imbody, published in the Washington Post, March 21, 2015: In annual appropriations bills since 1976, Democrats routinely have united with Republicans in passing the Hyde Amendment, which simply prevents taxpayer monies from funding abortions except in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother. Americans overwhelmingly oppose opening public coffers to the abortion industry.

Nevertheless, Democrats increasingly have been injecting abortion partisanship into human trafficking programs. Congressional hearings revealed how Obama administration officials denied a grant to a faith-based organization over abortion and other morally objectionable issues.

Many would note that abortion would only add to the trauma that human trafficking victims have already experienced. Yet even the Hyde Amendment does not disallow government-funded abortions in cases of rape, nor does it prevent abortions paid for with nongovernment funds. So protests over the Hyde Amendment in this trafficking-victims program are little more than partisan politics designed to enforce a radical abortion ideology. Jonathan Imbody, Ashburn. The writer is vice president for government relations for the Christian Medical Association.

Resources
CMDA Resources on Human Trafficking
CMDA Resources on Abortion

Action

Educate yourself (CME credit available) with CMDA’s comprehensive online education modules on recognizing, reporting and caring for victims of human trafficking: www.cmda.org/TIP

CMA recognized at March for Life

Excerpted from "March for Life reflects abortion awareness among young generation," Washington Times, January 23, 2015 - The 42nd March for Life again lived up to its reputation, drawing hundreds of thousands of mostly young marchers who oppose abortion.

Sara Silander, a 21-year-old senior from Jacksonville, Florida, who is president of Georgia Tech Students for Life, said, “I have always been taught that we should respect the dignity of everyone, including the unborn. We’ve always been told to protect the minorities, the impoverished and everyone, and that is so important, but we have also include the unborn.”

“I drove all the way from Michigan with my friends to be here. And I wanted to be here to walk for the unborn. I believe that little babies are just as precious inside of the womb as they are outside of it,” said Stephanie Mestizy, 25.

Several speakers talked about choosing life even when the unborn child is found to be imperfect. Eight or more of every 10 unborn children with disabilities are aborted. “That’s just wrong, isn’t it?” said Jeanne Monahan-Mancini, president of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington Republican and a leader of the Congressional Down Syndrome Caucus, said her son, who was born with that distinctive chromosomal anomaly, has strengthened her convictions that every life matters. “That extra chromosome has brought my family a whole bunch of joy,” she said.

Mrs. McMorris Rogers and other speakers addressed the legislative drama on Capitol Hill: Instead of voting as promised Thursday for a bill that would ban most abortions after 20 weeks because of the ability of a fetus to feel pain at that stage of life, the House took up — and passed — a bill to block federal funding of abortions, especially in the new health care insurance plans.

Rep. Christopher Smith, New Jersey Republican, said the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which he introduced, is necessary to end people’s “complicity” in paying for abortions, especially when they oppose the procedures. The House will soon take up the pain-capable bill, Mr. Smith added. “We will bring it to the floor and we will pass it.”

“The Senate will stand with the House” as it passes pro-life legislation, said Sen. Tim Scott, South Carolina Republican.

The now-massive March for Life is held on the Jan. 22 anniversary of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton Supreme Court rulings that made abortion a federal constitutional right.

Commentary

CMA VP for Government Relations Jonathan Imbody: “I enjoyed the privilege of representing you on stage just moments before the massive crowd of half a million pro-life marchers took to the streets to peacefully and impressively mark the Supreme Court's tragic 1973 decision opening the door to abortion on demand. Besides demonstrating the visible strength of the swelling pro-life movement, the March for Life also aims to influence public policy by having marchers visit their lawmakers after the march.

“This year a few otherwise pro-life GOP lawmakers managed to delay a planned vote on a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks. That is the stage of fetal development at which when our own members and others have testified that babies have all the architecture needed to feel pain yet lack the pain inhibitors that protect fully developed individuals. A few GOP representatives questioned a rape exception requirement that simply ensured reasonable compliance by stipulating that the rape must have been reported to authorities. The bill does not affect abortions sought during the first five months of pregnancy.

“As an alternative, the House of Representatives passed another CMA-backed bill, the No Taxpayers Funds for Abortions Act. That's good, and we expect in this new, more pro-life Congress to pass more bills backed by popular opinion, which disfavors government abortion funding, favors a ban on late-term abortions and favors parental involvement when minor girls are considering an abortion.

Action

1. Maybe marching in the streets hasn't been on your bucket list, but you might consider joining next year's March for Life simply to join hands with hundreds of thousands of other committed believers to demonstrate your support for the notion that every life is a sacred gift from God. Perhaps you could organize a passel of students or fellow church members to join you. You will be standing alongside many people just like you--normal, church-going believers who may not be politically inclined but sense a call to put some kind of action to their life-honoring values.
2. Voice your values by urging your lawmakers to support the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This bill will ban abortions after 20 weeks, when our own members and others have testified that developing babies have all the architecture needed to feel pain at intense levels. Click here to use our Freedom2Care pre-written, customizable form.

Resources
March for Life
CMDA resources on abortion
Fetal pain testimony
President Obama's statement

New anti-abortion bills in Congress

Excerpted from “Republicans Introduce Five Anti-Abortion Bills In First Days Of New Congress,” Huffington Post. January 8, 2015 — Emboldened by a new Senate majority, Republicans in Congress introduced five abortion restrictions in the first three days of the new legislative session that would severely limit women's access to the procedure.

Reps. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) on Monday reintroduced a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, which the GOP-controlled House already passed once in 2013. And Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) introduced four bills on Wednesday that would bar Planned Parenthood from receiving federal family planning funds, require all abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, ban abortions performed on the basis of gender, and allow hospitals, doctors and nurses to refuse to provide or participate in abortion care for women, even in cases of emergency.

Planned Parenthood Action Fund President Cecile Richards condemned the onslaught of anti-abortion bills on Thursday and the attack on her own organization. “The public wants Congress to protect women’s health, not interfere in women’s personal medical decisions," she said in a statement, "which means making sure all forms of birth control are affordable, women can get preventive care at Planned Parenthood and other trusted providers, and abortion remains safe and legal."

Abortion rights advocates expressed frustration that Republicans are launching new attacks on abortion at a federal level after running as moderates on the issue in the 2014 midterm elections. "The Republican Congress is like Groundhog's Day," said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "Just as they did in 2010, anti-choice Republicans hid their agenda on the campaign trail by promising to work to address the economy or the numerous other issues.”

Commentary

CMDA Senior Vice President Gene Rudd, MD: “Reporters need things to say and write about, so they ask lots of questions. Just today a reporter asked if I thought there would be a wave of abortion legislation in 2015. My response, ‘Of course; and in 2016 and onward.’ Sadly, I do not see this critical social issue resolved in 2015.

“The main thrust of the interview (and I assume the article being written) was to challenge the right of Congress to interfere with the patient-doctor relationship. Here are some of the thoughts I shared:

• Patients and doctors already have a myriad of laws and regulations governing the relationship.
• We might argue there are too many and some are not needed or inappropriate.
• But we cannot rationally argue that the patient-doctor relationship is outside the law.
• When a patient has an inflamed appendix, we have laws and regulations that say who may perform surgery and what standards must be met.
• Laws and regulations are even more important when a third life is involved.
• We don’t allow mothers to abuse or kill their born children, even if she and her doctor thought that would be best for her mental health.
• Laws that restrict abortion are simply society’s effort to decide how early in life we will bestow protection.
• While I favor protection from life’s beginning, for 2015, I will be pleased to see our society begin protecting life from 20 weeks gestation.

“Just as I was writing these comments, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (formally American College) announced they would hold a press conference to decry Congress’ intrusion into the patient-doctor relationship. The battle continues.”

Resources

CMDA’s Abortion Ethics Statement
The Modern Implications of Abortion by John Patrick, MD
Visit our Freedom2Care legislative action website for easy-to-use forms to voice your values to your legislators.

URGENT ACTION: The US House of Representatives will vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act during the March for Life this Thursday, Jan. 22. This bill will ban abortions after 20 weeks, when our own members and others have testified that developing babies have all the architecture needed to feel pain at intense levels. Click here to use our Freedom2Care pre-written, customizable form to urge your Representative to support this important bill.

To attend the March for Life, click here. Our VP for Govt. Relations will represent CMA on stage at this annual event that marks the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision.

Pro-life movement makes gains in election

Excerpted from "Polling Shows Impact of Abortion Issue in Mid-Term Election," National Right to Life News, November 6, 2014 - A new post-election poll of actual voters conducted by The Polling Company/ WomanTrend, found that the issue of abortion once again played a key role in the mid-term elections, and that National Right to Life and its state affiliates were key to getting out the pro-life vote for pro-life candidates.

Twenty-three percent of voters said that the abortion issue affected their vote and voted for candidates who oppose abortion. This compares to just 16 percent who said abortion affected their vote and voted for candidates who favor abortion, yielding a 7 percent advantage for pro-life candidates.

These poll results help explain the victories experienced by the right-to-life movement in Tuesday’s elections. Despite being vastly outspent by pro-abortion organizations such as Planned Parenthood and EMILY’s List, pro-life candidates won Tuesday by significant margins. There were 26 races in which a candidate supported by National Right to Life was running against a candidate supported by the pro-abortion PAC EMILY’s List. Nineteen (73 percent) of the National Right to Life-supported candidates won.

“The abortion issue has played a key role in every major election since Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980,” said Carol Tobias, National Right to Life president. The poll also found that voters heard and saw the right-to-life message in the days leading up to the election.

Editor's note: As a 501(c)3 organization, CMA educates on issues and legislation but does not endorse candidates for office.

Commentary

CMA VP for Government Relations Jonathan Imbody: “Activist electioneering is hard but potentially productive work, and this round of advertising, phone calling and one-on-one conversations leading up to the November 4 elections paid off for the pro-life cause. The House of Representatives gained at least seven pro-life members, and the Senate's switch of party control (the GOP will have at least a 53-47 edge, with not all races decided) means that pro-life bills now should at least gain a vote.

“To some followers of Christ, following politics seems at best pointless and at worst counter-productive. Some believers disdain or shrink from the controversies and contention that mark modern politics. Some even decry any public policy involvement including voting, asserting that engaging in worldly politics is beneath heaven-bound Christians.

“Here's a case for robust Christian engagement in public policy:

1. Scripture (Romans 13) teaches that God has ordained governments for two primary purposes—to punish evil and to reward good.
2. While God provides everyone with a conscience to subjectively sense right and wrong (Romans 2), God's Word and His Spirit enable believers uniquely to objectively and spiritually discern good and evil (1 Corinthians 2).
3. In a democratic republic such as the United States, We the People—including We the People of God—possess the power, privilege and duty to guide our government toward truth and justice.
4. When believers disengage from public policy and refuse to guide their government as political leaders, activists and voters, their government suffers a critical loss of counsel regarding truth and objective standards of justice.
5. This dereliction of duty by believers, who by the gifts of God's revelation and Spirit know right from wrong most clearly, opens the door to control of the government by power-seeking individuals with a self-concocted, upside-down worldview.
6. When subjective ideologies and arbitrary assertions replace the Judeo-Christian objective standards that formed the foundations for Western governments and justice, evil becomes good, and good becomes evil.
7. In the absence of objective standards, ideology replaces the rule of law and justice, and government enforces its ideology with unchecked power. Individuals holding opposing worldviews and the politically powerless suffer most, and no one remains safe from arbitrary autocratic attack."

Action

1. Join our Freedom2Care coalition Federal Registry on LinkedIn (registration is free) to gain updates on opportunities to advise government officials, serve on federal commissions and secure federal jobs.
2. Visit our Freedom2Care legislative action website for easy-to-use forms to voice your values to your legislators.

Resources
Defending Life 2014 - a state-by-state legal guide to abortion, bioethics, and the end of life, by CMA legal partner Americans United for Life.
CMDA Abortion Ethics Statement
Remember to Remember: The Modern Implications of Abortion by Dr. John Patrick

Tennessee passes abortion amendment

Excerpted from "Tennessee Amendment 1 abortion measure passes," The Tennessean. November 5, 2014 — Tennessee voters by a solid margin backed Amendment 1, a measure that gives state lawmakers more power to restrict and regulate abortions. The measure was perhaps the most closely watched and most contentious Election Day vote in Tennessee's midterm elections. It passed with 53 percent of the vote. Its passage has no immediate effect on abortion policies in Tennessee. But it will give lawmakers far more power in enacting abortion regulations and restrictions in Tennessee.

Backers of the amendment were jubilant, embracing at the offices of Tennessee Right to Life, the campaign headquarters for the effort. "Obviously for those of us who believe life is sacred, this was the necessary first step toward protection not only for the unborn but for women and girls who fall prey to people looking to profit from untimely or unexpected pregnancies," said Brian Harris, president of Tennessee Right to Life and a coordinator for the "Yes on 1" campaign, who has devoted much of the past 14 years fighting for the measure to get on the ballot.

Opponents on Tuesday night called the measure a "dangerous ballot measure that strips away the state's established right to safe and legal abortion" and vowed abortion rights supporters "will not stand for restrictions that serve only to create barriers to service," said Ashley Coffield, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood — Greater Memphis Region.

The abortion measure drew the close attention of national groups on both sides of the abortion divide — and large contributions from abortion rights advocates outside the state concerned not only about the impact in Tennessee, but beyond its borders. One in four abortions in Tennessee is sought by a woman from out of state. Proponents of the measure called on Tennessee voters to end the state's status as an "abortion destination."

Commentary

CMDA Member and Board Certified Obstetrics and Gynecology C. Brent Boles, MD: “The votes have been counted and Amendment 1 is now part of Tennessee’s Constitution. This amendment corrects the poor decision made by the Tennessee Supreme Court in 2000 in Planned Parenthood v. Sundquist, in which four of five justices decided that Tennessee’s Constitution had stronger protections for abortion than the U.S. Constitution. Since that decision, the Tennessee legislature has been unable to pass meaningful regulation having to do with abortion in our state. As a result, the abortion industry was not accountable to the state’s Department of Health in any significant way. Now, the Tennessee legislature can work to protect vulnerable women from being victimized by the abortion industry and reduce the number of innocent babies lost every year in Tennessee. I hope we will see a restoration of a standard informed consent process and a brief waiting period, as well as the health department’s ability to enforce the same patient safety standards respected by all of legitimate medicine.
“How did the amendment pass? Planned Parenthood poured millions into the state to defeat this amendment because its passage was a threat to the abortion industry’s business model. They outspent the amendment’s supporters 2 to 1. Supporters of Amendment 1 couldn’t outspend Planned Parenthood, but they did outwork Planned Parenthood. A tremendous grassroots effort all over the state resulted in success.

“One of the key pieces resulting in success was the involvement of churches. Success for life and for women in Tennessee shows we can begin to see the tide turn if the church in America will find its voice. How can Christian healthcare professionals play a role? Paul tells us in Romans 12 that we are all parts of Christ’s body and we all have roles to play, and he admonishes us to fulfill our roles with diligence.

“Christian healthcare professionals are in a unique position to make a difference on this issue across the country. We are leaders in our churches and communities. Legislators listen when we call. Pro-abortion forces do not hesitate to use pro-abortion physicians in this fight on both the state and federal levels to promote the abortion industry’s many deceptions. We can do no less. The church has been silent on social issues in America for far too long, and if the church is to truly be salt and light in today’s society, then it is incumbent upon Christian healthcare professionals as members of Christ’s body to take the lead on the issue of life. Successful passage of Amendment 1 is cause for praising our God, but it is not the last chapter in the story of abortion in America. Now is the time to not only stand firm, but to also press forward at every opportunity. It may be that the church is finding its voice once again, and we as Christian healthcare professionals need to be part of the choir.”

Resources

CMDA Abortion Ethics Statement
Remember to Remember: The Modern Implications of Abortion by Dr. John Patrick

California: Churches must cover abortions

Excerpted from "Churches forced to cover abortion file federal complaint against Calif. agency," Alliance Defending Freedom news release, October 09, 2014 - Life Legal Defense Foundation and Alliance Defending Freedom filed a formal complaint Thursday with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services over the California Department of Managed Health Care’s decision to force all employers, including churches, to pay for elective abortions in their health insurance plans. LLDF and ADF represent seven California churches that object to offering their employees insurance plans covering elective abortions and allege that DMHC’s coercion of abortion coverage violates federal law.

Last month, LLDF and ADF filed a separate complaint with HHS on behalf of employees at Loyola Marymount University that also do not want a health plan that covers abortions. In August, LLDF and ADF lodged a letter with DMHC itself warning it of its violation of federal law. DMHC responded by affirming its decision to force all plans to cover all abortions, without explaining how that decision squares with a federal law insisting otherwise.

Commentary

Alliance Defending Freedom Attorney Casey Mattox: “Forcing a church to be party to elective abortion is one of the utmost-imaginable assaults on our most fundamental American freedoms. California is flagrantly violating the federal law that protects employers from being forced into having abortion in their health insurance plans. No state can blatantly ignore federal law and think that it should continue to receive taxpayer money.” audio sound bite


Action
Use our easy, pre-written forms at our Freedom2Care legislative action website to contact your legislators on the following religious freedom bills:

1. Protect healthcare professionals from discrimination - S. 137 - Protect your choice of pro-life healthcare professionals - take action on the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act
2. Protect conscience freedom in healthcare: HR 940 - Preserve patient choice and protect pro-life professionals from discrimination for moral and ethical views.

Resources
Freedom2Care - CMDA's one-stop source for news, commentary and resources on freedom of faith, conscience and speech

Govt. report links tax dollars and abortions

Excerpted from "GAO: Taxpayer funds likely paying for abortion under Obamacare," World magazine, September 18, 2014, - The Affordable Care Act requires insurers to separately itemize and charge for abortion coverage, a compromise designed to prevent taxpayer funding of abortions. The compromise drew support from pro-life Democrats in 2010, and was crucial to overcoming Republican opposition.
 
Federal law under the Hyde Amendment prohibits taxpayer funding of abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or threats to the life of the mother. President Barack Obama promised in March 2010 that the Affordable Care Act policies would adhere to the Hyde Amendment.

But the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report revealed taxpayer funding is likely subsidizing elective abortions. The report evaluated the 27 states and Washington, D.C., that do not restrict elective abortion coverage in their insurance markets. It found that 1,036 of the 2,098 subsidized plans in those states cover elective abortions. The 18 evaluated insurers offered a quarter of those policies. Although the GAO report didn’t specify that taxpayer money funded abortions under Obamacare, it raised serious concerns.

“Americans throughout the country have raised serious concerns that they find it nearly impossible to determine whether the plan they purchase finances the killing of unborn children—there is little or no transparency—hence the request by several members of Congress including [House Speaker John] Boehner that GAO investigate,” said Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ, who also co-chairs the Bipartisan Congressional Pro-Life Caucus.

“Now we know that at least 1,036 plans cover abortion, and the so-called ‘surcharge’ for abortion coverage is simply an accounting gimmick,” said Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America.

The Health and Human Services Department acknowledged in a written response that “additional clarification may be needed” regarding the healthcare law’s abortion coverage.

In response, pro-lifers have called for the passage of the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” authored by Smith. The House of Representatives passed the bill in January, but it met opposition in the Senate.

Commentary

Mary Harned, Staff Counsel, Americans United for Life (AUL): (from her NRO commentary): “Given the Affordable Care Act's extensive list of shortcomings and controversies, the GAO report may elicit little more than a yawn from the media. Yet, the report is stunning in that it documents how the Obama administration has abandoned and even undermined the very promises that enabled the healthcare legislation to pass the U.S. House of Representatives.

“When objections to taxpayer funding for abortion or abortion coverage nearly brought down the bill, it took an eleventh hour ‘compromise’ — statutory language provided by Senator Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) and a promised executive order — to save the ACA. Now, over four years later, the GAO report confirms that the abortion deal was effectively meaningless.

“The language in the law is unambiguous — ‘separate payments’ are required. Yet, insurance issuers are not collecting separate payments. In fact, the Obama administration is telling issuers that they do not need to collect two checks.

“States that do not require these ‘segregation plans’ cannot know if and how much taxpayer funding is being used to pay for abortions. Insurance issuers who are not collecting separate payments or even itemizing abortion premiums are not likely to be keeping abortions premiums separate from federal funds.

“So, abortions are being paid for out of federally subsidized premiums. That is taxpayer funding for abortion.”

Resources
GAO report. (To see which plans cover abortion, click on "Abortion Services Interactive Map.")

Will doctors be forced to kill?

Excerpted from "Will doctors be forced to kill?" commentary by Wesley J. Smith, First Things, July 25, 2014 - The wailing and gnashing of teeth in some quarters over the modest Hobby Lobby decision has me worried. Apparently, many on the political port side of the country believe that once a favored public policy has been enacted, it immediately becomes a "right" that can never be altered or denied. More, once such a "right" is established for the individual, others should have the duty to ensure access—even at the cost of violating their own religious consciences.

If such thinking prevails, medical professionals could be forced to participate in the taking of human life, for example in abortion, assisted suicide, and (given the research trends in regenerative medicine) providing treatments derived from the intentional destruction of human embryos or fetuses.

That certainly seems to be the direction in which the ACLU wishes to take the country. Recently, the ACLU of Washington State began trolling for potential clients to sue medical professionals or facilities that refused to participate in certain legal procedures or transactions based on religious objection:

"Have you or members of your family been denied reproductive health care or end-of-life services by a religiously based medical facility? The ACLU believes that everyone in Washington has the right to receive health care that is not restricted by the religious beliefs of others."

The solicitation listed specific procedures—some of which involve the taking of human life—that presumably a patient should have a right to receive. They include:

• Abortion
• Information about Washington’s Death with Dignity Act [the law permitting doctor-assisted suicide for the terminally ill];
• Referral to support organizations or cooperating providers to assist a patient in using Washington’s Death with Dignity Act;
• Medical providers permitted to participate in Washington’s Death with Dignity Act;
• Palliative care/nursing support for patients who choose to stop eating and drinking to allow natural death (e.g., participation in suicide by starvation, not a natural death)
• Pharmacy dispensary (e.g., forced dispensing of drugs used in assisted suicide, RU 486 abortions, etc.)

Moreover, the American medical establishment already opposes conscience exemptions for abortion and the dispensing of contraception. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) published an ethics-committee opinion denying its members the right of conscience against abortion.

Such denial of medical conscience is not yet embedded in American law. But if the anti-religious liberties lobby gets its way, it will be. Indeed, in coming years, medical professionals who believe in the Hippocratic Oath’s prohibition against killing could well be driven out of medicine.

Commentary

Jonathan Imbody, CMA VP for Govt. Relations: – The US Senate recently highlighted this battle over conscience and autonomy by voting on a bill (the Women’s Health Protection Act, S. 1696) that would, in the words of the National Right to Life Committee, "invalidate nearly all existing state limitations on abortion ... [including] laws allowing medical professionals to opt out of providing abortions, laws limiting the performance of abortions to licensed physicians, bans on elective abortion after 20 weeks, meaningful limits on abortion after viability, and bans on the use of abortion as a method of sex selection." Thankfully, the Senate bill failed, on a largely party-line cloture vote.

The bill reflects the escalating conflict between two camps in American society that hold irreconcilable worldviews: those who follow objective moral and ethical standards outside themselves (such as the Bible and the Hippocratic oath) and those whose only ethic is autonomy, which boils down to "whatever I want." The scary part is that many authorities in the medical community, which used to lead the way in promoting and following objective ethical standards, have all but abandoned the Hippocratic oath and increasingly promote autonomy as the ethic that trumps all else.

As appealing as autonomy may sound and even though it has its place in some cases, it is not the kind of standard that protects others well at all, like the Bible and the Hippocratic oath do. That's because one person's autonomy in one direction inevitably runs smack into another person's autonomy headed in the opposite direction. What happens then? Whoever is strongest wins.

If a patient gains the power in the name of autonomy to demand and receive whatever he or she wants, the healthcare professional becomes a mere "provider" and loses the essence of professionalism--professing to follow an objective standard. Similarly, if a mother insists on fulfilling her autonomy through an abortion, the baby loses her life.

Autonomy brooks no competition. So autonomy is less a reliable ethic and more a prescription for conflict, an enemy of tolerance and diversity.

In the First Amendment's establishment clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), America's founders carefully balanced conscience freedoms with community interests, minority rights with majority rule, individual liberty with governmental function. We must shore up that understanding of freedom every chance we get--in the culture, in Congress and in the courts--or we will lose the ability to live out our faith in our professions and in the public square.

Action

1. Urge your U.S. senators to support (or thank your senator for already co-sponsoring) the Health Care Conscience Rights Act - S. 1204 , to protect religious liberty and preserve patient access by providing conscience protections for health care professionals. (Note: You will be provided with editable text based on your senator's sponsorship or non-sponsorship of this bill.)
2. Urge your U.S. Representative to support (or thank your Rep. for already co-sponsoring) the Health Care Conscience Rights Act - H.R. 940.

Resources
CMDA's Freedom2Care website: Freedom of faith, conscience and speech
CMDA's Freedom2Care commentaries in national newspapers
CMDA Freedom of Faith and Conscience resources
"U.S. Senate Democrats launch push for “the most radical pro-abortion bill ever" - National Right to Life

Contraception's impact on abortion disputed

Excerpted from "Does Contraception Really Reduce the Abortion Rate?," commentary by Michael J. New, National Review Online, June 17, 2014 - Last week, the Guttmacher Institute released an analysis of the recent decline in the incidence of abortion. Overall, the abortion rate declined by an impressive 13 percent between 2008 and 2011 and reached its lowest level since 1973. This Guttmacher analysis joins a chorus of pundits — including Andrew Sullivan — who were quick to credit contraception for this decline in the abortion rate. And like most Guttmacher studies, this analysis is quick to downplay pro-life laws and other pro-life efforts.

The author makes a fair point that the abortion decline was fairly consistent throughout the country and was not concentrated in states that were active in passing pro-life laws. He correctly points out the sharp increase in state-level pro-life laws took place after the abortion decline already happened. However, the study presents a false dichotomy between either crediting legislation or crediting contraceptives for the falling abortion numbers. Indeed, it neglects other factors such as public opinion. In 2009, for the very first time, Gallup reported that a majority of Americans described themselves as “pro-life.”

A longer term analysis of abortion trends reveals insights which weaken Guttmacher’s case. Last month, the Charlotte Lozier Institute released a study by Susan Wills analyzing the U.S. abortion decline from 1990 to 2010. The key finding is that the abortion decline has not been uniform among age groups. The declines have been the greatest in both absolute and percentage terms among teens and women in their early 20s. This is important for two reasons. First, Long Acting Reversible Contraceptives (LARCs), which are touted by Guttmacher, tend to be unpopular with this subset of women. Second, there is a growing body of data showing declines in teen sexual activity since the early 1990s. As such, contraceptive use may be playing less of a role in the long-term abortion decline than the Guttmacher analysis would indicate.

Additional analysis further weakens Guttmacher’s argument. According to its own statistics, the number of abortions has fallen by roughly 34 percent since 1990 and the abortion rate has fallen by 38 percent since that time. It is true that contraception use has increased since the early 1990s, but it’s also true that contraception use has been rising steadily since the early 1960s, and obviously predates the abortion decline by a significant number of years. More importantly, even though contraceptive use has gone up, the fertility rate and unintended pregnancy rate have both actually increased slightly since the mid-1990s. All in all, pro-life efforts to change the hearts and minds of women facing crisis pregnancies might be more effective than commonly realized.

Commentary

CMDA Executive Vice President Gene Rudd, MD – “When I recently asked an accountant for a financial report, her response was, “What do you want the numbers to be?” I had heard this as a joke, but she seemed serious. When I told her I wanted the numbers to be accurate, she explained that she could make a variety of assumptions and chose different methodologies that would produce somewhat different results. If I had a preference for how the numbers should look, she would make decisions that would influence the numbers in that direction. To me it sounded like cooking the books; essentially asking what I wanted 2 + 2 to equal.

“And it is not only in accounting. The medical and scientific literature are replete with similar biases and influences that determine outcome, intentional or not. A survey published in the journal Natureⁱ revealed the magnitude of the problem, from poor record keeping (27 percent) to outright fraud. And these were the researchers themselves admitting wrongdoing! Actual misbehavior may be higher.

“We should be wary that those with social or political agendas will cook the books, reporting data the way that serves their purpose. What do you think the Guttmacher Institute (founded and funded by Planned Parenthood) wants the numbers to be?”

Resources
CMDA Resources on Abortion

ⁱMartinson BC, Anderson MS, de Vries R. Scientists behaving badly, Nature 435/9, June 2005.

Senators promote abortion pain bill

Excerpted from "GOP senators demand vote on banning abortions after 20 weeks," The Hill, May 7, 2014 - Republican senators are demanding a vote on legislation that would ban most abortions after 20 weeks, citing a new study that says fetuses can feel pain at that point in their development.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte

Thirty-three senators led by Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) asked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to bring Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) abortion bill to the Senate floor for a vote. The bill, also known as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy except in cases of rape, incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.

In the letter to Reid, the senators cited a study from the research arm of the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that opposes abortion. The report calls on the U.S. to end abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, a move it said would be in line with international norms.

“It is time that we in Congress act to bring the United States out of the fringe and closer to international norms on late abortions,” the senators wrote in their letter. Thirteen states have already enacted bans on abortions after 20-weeks, and according to polls, at least a plurality of people in the United States support the idea.

“I find it troubling that the United States is standing with countries such as China and North Korea in allowing elective abortions past 20 weeks,” Graham said. “With an impressive 40 co-sponsors and overwhelming support by the public in poll after poll, it is time that Majority Leader Reid allow a vote on a compassionate 20-week limit.”

Commentary

CMA VP for Govt. Relations Jonathan Imbody: “I have worked with Sen. Ayotte on domestic healthcare issues and with Sen. Graham on international healthcare issues, and both senators bring to their office compassion and a determination to defend those who cannot defend themselves. Their bill, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, builds upon science and testimony such as CMA members have provided to Congress. The bill, which protects pain-capable children beginning at 20 weeks and is expected to save the lives of roughly 18,000 unborn babies each year, deserves our support because:

• Evidence indicates that unborn children feel pain by at least 20 weeks post-fertilization.
• Studies show that late abortions substantially risk women’s health.
• The United States is one of only seven countries to permit elective abortion past 20 weeks, joining China, North Korea, Canada, Vietnam, Singapore and the Netherlands.
• A 2008 study by the Guttmacher Institute shows that there are at least 140 abortionists willing to perform abortions at 20 weeks fetal age and beyond.
• The majority of late abortions are performed on an elective basis, according to the testimony of abortionists.¹
• Thirteen states have enacted this legislation, with several more in the process.² The U.S. House passed this legislation in June 2013 by a vote of 228-196.
• Consensus exists among Americans to enact legislation protecting unborn babies beginning at 20 weeks. Polling from Quinnipiac (62 percent), the Huffington Post (59 percent) and numerous others consistently confirms the American public’s support for this legislation, especially among women (68 percent according to Quinnipiac).”

Action
Use our Freedom2Care easy, pre-written and customizable form to urge your senators to support this bill.

Resources
Testimony on Fetal Pain by Dr. Jean Wright
Testimony on Fetal Pain by Dr. Julie Ann Griffin before the Kansas House of Representatives, Committee on Federal and State Affairs, February 16, 2011.
Fetal Pain Legislation: Is it Viable?
CMDA abortion-related resources
¹Sprang, M. LeRoy, and Mark G. Neerhof, 1998, "Rationale for banning abortions late in pregnancy," Journal of the American Medical Association, 280:744-747.
²CLI map

Governor seeks to thwart abortion clinic law

Excerpted from "Gov. McAuliffe calls for review of abortion clinic regulations in Virginia," Washington Post, May 12, 2014 - Gov. Terry McAuliffe moved to free Virginia’s abortion clinics from strict hospital-style building codes on Monday, loading up the state health board with abortion rights supporters and ordering it to review rules that clinic operators say threaten to put them out of business.

The Democratic governor is also looking for ways to soften or suspend the rules to keep clinics open during the health board’s review, which could take more than two years. The General Assembly approved the regulations in 2011; they are set to take effect as early as June.

“I am concerned that the extreme and punitive regulations adopted last year jeopardize the ability of most women’s health centers to keep their doors open and place in jeopardy the health and reproductive rights of Virginia women,” McAuliffe said.

“This was an overtly political move,” said House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford). “The General Assembly, by law, directed the Board of Health to establish regulations to protect the health and safety of women who seek an abortion. This seems like another attempt by the McAuliffe administration to undermine a law they don’t like, and that is very troubling.”

On Monday, McAuliffe appointed five people to the 15-member health board, filling one vacancy and nudging four other members to wrap up their terms about a month early.

McAuliffe, elected with help from abortion rights groups, made no pretense of ignoring the litmus test, stating flatly that his appointees reflected his views not only on abortion but also on the need to review the clinic regulations. The five appointees “share his commitment to women’s health and support his plan to review the health center regulations,” the governor’s office announced in a written statement.

Yet there could be a political downside for McAuliffe, who takes the step as he seeks to get conservative Republicans on board with Medicaid expansion. Abortion opponents characterized McAuliffe’s move as yet another end run around the legislature.

“Whether the governor and the abortion industry like it or not, the law of Virginia requires that abortion centers have health and safety standards,” said Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation of Virginia.

“The governor is not a king, but he’s doing everything within his power,” Coy said.

Commentary

CMA VP for Govt. Relations Jonathan Imbody: “Trying to clarify that ‘the governor is not a king,’ the spokesman for Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe unwittingly highlights the autocratic nature of the governor's scheme to skirt state law on abortion clinic health and safety.

“Virginia's legislature is one of dozens of state legislatures that in recent years have aimed to curb abuses and bring abortion clinics in line with reasonable health and safety requirements of similar facilities. Abortion clinic abuses uncovered in Texas, for example, included the illegal disposal of hazardous bio-medical and infectious waste, including tissue that appeared to be the partial remains of aborted babies; dirty and poorly maintained conditions inside and outside the abortion clinics; drug violations, including the illegal dumping of drug vials containing controlled substances and the availability and use of blank prescription slips; and widespread abuses of Texas’s informed consent law and the mandated 24-hour reflection period.

“Governor McAuliffe, however, is ignoring such abuses and plotting to put abortion ideology over the rule of law, seeking end-runs around the people's representatives and meanwhile stacking the state health board with abortion partisans.

“A year ago May 13, Philadelphia abortion clinic doctor Kermit Gosnell was convicted of murder. Gosnell had openly operated a squalid abortion clinic, let a patient die and butchered babies born alive. The Grand Jury report cited testimony revealing that when pro-abortion governor Tom Ridge took office, ‘high-level government officials’ decided to discontinue abortion clinic inspections. ‘There was a concern that if they did routine inspections, that they may find a lot of these facilities didn’t meet [health and safety standards] and then there would be less abortion facilities...’

“When abortion politics trumps health and safety, ‘back alley abortion clinics’ and their accompanying horrors thrive. As a healthcare professional, your support of abortion clinic health and safety regulation--through testimony before legislatures, behind-the-scenes expert advice and the use of electronic, print and social media--can prove very effective.

Action
Order model state legislation that your state can adopt to protect health and safety.
Use our easy Freedom2Care form to urge your legislators to support S. 369 - Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.

Resources
CMA-led U.S. Senate taskforce report on abortion clinic regulation (access restricted to CMDA members)
After Gosnell's ''House of Horrors'': Women's Health and Abortion in America - webcast
Model clinic health and safety legislation

SCOTUS hears case on free speech re: abortion in Obamacare

Excerpted from "Campaign speech case is regulatory overkill," commentary by George F. Will, Washington Post, April 18, 2014 - Former U.S. representative Steve Driehaus, a Cincinnati Democrat who considers himself antiabortion, says he lost his 2010 reelection bid because the antiabortion Susan B. Anthony List violated Ohio’s law with ads saying that when he voted for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), he voted for taxpayer funding of abortion. When he learned that the SBA List planned to erect billboards proclaiming “Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion,” he filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission, the truth arbiter and speech regulator. So the billboard company refused the SBA List’s business.

Driehaus says the ACA does not specifically appropriate money for abortions. The SBA List counters that the ACA can subsidize abortion-inclusive insurance coverage.

Driehaus says insurance companies must collect a “separate payment” from enrollees and segregate this money from federal funds. The SBA List says money is fungible, so this accounting sleight of hand changes nothing.

Driehaus says an executive order issued after passage of the ACA, which was promised to get him and a few other pro-life Democrats to vote for the act, prohibits ACA funds from being used for abortions. The SBA List says the executive order proved that the ACA itself allowed taxpayer-funded abortions.

Ohio’s law, which obviously is designed to encourage self-censorship, certainly chilled the SBA List’s political speech. The SBA List’s brief to the Supreme Court notes that “a law requiring citizens to pay $1 before they could publicly comment on electoral issues or candidates for office would be immediately justiciable (and promptly invalidated).” Yet Ohio’s law makes it easy for literally millions of Ohioans to subject participants in the political process to much more expensive costs — not to mention the threat of incarceration.

This case, which comes from Cincinnati, where the regional IRS office was especially active in suppressing the political speech of conservative groups, involves the intersection of two ominous developments. One is the inevitable, and inevitably abrasive, government intrusions into sensitive moral issues that come with government’s comprehensive and minute regulation of health care with taxes, mandates and other coercions. The Supreme Court will soon rule on one such controversy, the ACA requirement that employer-provided health-care plans must cover the cost of abortifacients. The other development is government’s growing attempts to regulate political speech, as illustrated by the Obama administration’s unapologetic politicization of the IRS to target conservative groups.

These developments are not coincidental. Government’s increasing reach and pretensions necessarily become increasingly indiscriminate.

Commentary

CMA VP for Govt. Relations Jonathan Imbody: – “Government actions hostile to religious freedom have triggered a raft of cases that now are reaching the Supreme Court. They're worth tracking because (a) they involve our faith-based and pro-life colleagues and (b) the principles impact virtually every believer, and especially those who own or work for businesses--including medical and dental practices. These cases include, but are not limited to:

1. the recently heard religious freedom cases of faith-motivated for-profit employers forced to violate their conscience convictions by participating in providing HHS-mandated contraceptives that the FDA notes can end the life of a human embryo;
2. the free speech case analyzed above, of a pro-life organization censored for political speech that sought to educate voters on abortion-related provisions in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare);
3. the upcoming religious freedom cases (of a total of nearly 100 cases in all) of non-profit organizations also opposed to participating in the HHS contraceptives mandate.

“With the number of Americans who hold no religious affiliation increasing (read my analysis of that trend here), the faith community is losing natural supporters of religious freedom. That means we have to step up our efforts to protect ourselves in law and also to educate our countrymen.


“Some basic points to emphasize about religious freedom:

1. Faith-based groups help the poor and needy. (Polling shows that even the non-religious still appreciate the charitable services of the faith community.)
2. Religious liberty protects against discrimination and promotes tolerance and diversity. (Why should religious views be censored in the public arena? Religious tolerance is a hallmark of our democratic republic designed to aid the coexistence of disparate groups and viewpoints.)
3. A threat to one group’s First Amendment freedoms is a threat to all. As Protestant Pastor Martin Niemoller lamented after serving in a concentration camp during the Nazi holocaust, ‘First they came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for me.’”

Resources

CMA SCOTUS brief in Hobby Lobby religious freedom case

CMA’s Freedom2Care website on freedom of faith, conscience and speech

CMA commentaries

Action

Use our easy pre-written customizable message to support H.R. 940 - Healthcare Conscience Rights Act (House bill) and S. 1204 - Health Care Conscience Rights Act (Senate bill)

Pro-life movement unites in march on Washington

Excerpted from "Annual 'March for Life' to go on despite ice and cold," USA Today, Jan. 22, 2014 - "We march because 56 million Americans never had a chance to experience snow," the March for Life's Twitter account posted Tuesday, referring to the estimated number of abortions since the 1973 Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal nationwide.

Veronika Johannsen, 22, of College Station, Texas, beat the weather and arrived safely for her second time at the march.

"The face is changing. It's not just white male politicians like the pro-choice people like to say," Johannsen said. "All kinds of people come. Religious groups of all different denominations, former abortion workers, women who have been raped or have been conceived in rape."

This is the 40th year that protesters will march from the National Mall to the Supreme Court, and 2014 is bringing changes like social media and a March For Life app. There is a "virtual march" on Facebook where users who can't make it can post a past March for Life photo as their cover photo to show support.

The theme this year is adoption. Speakers will include Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia and Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois.

"We want to encourage women facing the option of abortion to choose adoption," said Jeanne Monahan, president of the March for Life Education & Defense Fund. "Adoption is at the center of motherhood. Motherhood is all about sacrifices. This is an ultimate sacrifice for the good of the baby."

Commentary

CMA VP for Govt. Relations Jonathan Imbody– “Respect for life need not be a partisan proposition, and thankfully some politicians challenge the notion that a party cannot simultaneously advance the interests of women and babies. That's crucial, because decades ago, a specious argument of radical feminists began to prevail in the courts and with many politicians and women--namely, that a woman cannot advance professionally apart from the ability to terminate the life of her unborn child. Thankfully, many pro-life professional women, including members of organizations like CMDA's Women in Medicine and Dentistry, are demonstrating the fallacy of that assertion.

“I enjoyed the privilege of joining my good friend Jeanne Monahan, president of the March for Life, on stage Wednesday. I felt heartened as I looked out on the enormous crowd on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.—women, children and men who had braved 18-degree cold to join our march to the Supreme Court to solemnly protest the Roe v. Wade 1973 abortion decision. Especially encouraging are the vast numbers of young men and women who have seen through the deception that separates women from their babies and have determined to see the horror of abortion on demand abolished in their lifetime.

“If you can make it to next year's March for Life, please do so and bring family and friends. I hope you will also winsomely engage others in personal conversations, social media networks and professional opportunities to help them unpack the deception of abortion rights and recognize the gift of life.

“You can also help build a culture of life by encouraging and supporting options for women in challenging pregnancies--including by serving as a medical advisor in your community's pregnancy center.”

"We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God…" (2 Corinthians 10:5, NASB).

Action

1. Join the March for Life next year
2. Serve in a local pregnancy center (see Action under article below)

Resources

• Read Freedom2Care blog and view March for Life photos
• CMDA Abortion Resources

Why a feminist changed her mind on abortion

Excerpted from "How I Changed My Mind about Abortion," by Julia Herrington, Patheos, accessed on January 20, 2014 - Abortion was not an issue that I had ever imagined I’d become remotely passionate about. I am a bona-fide feminist with extreme ideas and boisterous opinions. Secretly, I’ve always felt that abortion wasn’t ideal and maybe not even right. But it’s complicated to believe that when you’re a feminist, and it’s certainly not something you profess publicly.

Working at a Pregnancy Resource Center changed all of this. This organization exists to offer women alternatives to abortion. I was pleasantly surprised to find that my co-workers were kind, compassionate and thoughtful.

My perspective changed dramatically because I determined that abortion does not actually benefit women. In so much as this is a women’s issue, it seems that abortion actually oppresses women. Procedurally what abortion requires is the silencing of a woman’s body and the unmitigated dismissing of her gender. What’s more, the reason a woman finds herself seeking out an abortion is that society holds her solely liable for pregnancy. Why are we letting men off the hook?

Abortion has a lot more to do with sex than we might have thought. Pornography, sexual crimes and abuses against women cannot be disconnected from the issue of abortion. Sexual liberation has made slaves out of women; it has only perpetuated and glorified their objectification. Sex that is void of relationship, honor and respect is why we’re here, be it the woman who is raped or the teenager who gets pregnant.

Just because a child is born into tragedy does not mean that his or her life is destined for a tragic ending. Regardless of circumstance, we as Christ followers must possess hope that any situation is redeemable. That’s what Jesus does, He redeems things. To be honest, I’m a fledgling where this conversation is concerned. I have really only just opened the door on this issue.

We cannot disregard this issue. We can no longer allow for the continued unquestioned oppression of women to persist. We need to reclaim healthy sexuality for ourselves, our children, our communities and our culture. And we must defend the weak, the defenseless; the children who might not be born.

Commentary

CMDA Member and Care Net Medical Advisor Sandy Christiansen, MD, FACOG– As an ‘older’ pro-life woman, it does my heart much good to see the next generation taking the standard and running with it. Kudos to Julia Herrington! Right you are that pregnancy centers are all about dispensing the compassion of Jesus to women—and men—at their point of need. Women facing an unplanned pregnancy come to our centers with a jumble of emotions and find a safe place to be heard, to gain valuable information about their bodies and their baby and to explore life-affirming alternatives to abortion.

“Abortion is not healthy for women. In fact, there are no scientific studies demonstrating how abortion improves women's mental health.¹ On the contrary, there is a lot data supporting induced abortion's harmful effect on women's wellbeing and mounting evidence of its negative impact on men.

“Not to burst Miss Herrington's feminist bubble, but pregnancy centers actually are responding to this new research and are customizing services for both women and men. Women are more likely to choose abortion because of lack of support and because they don't want to become single mothers.² Men who have experienced a partner's abortion can struggle with anger, anxiety and depression.³ No matter how you cut it, men are involved and need support, too. To find a pregnancy center near you or to talk to someone who cares, visit www.pregnancydecisionline.org.”

¹Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Boden JM. Does abortion reduce the mental health risks of unwanted or unintended pregnancy? A re-appraisal of the evidence. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2013 Sep;47(9):819-27. doi: 10.1177/0004867413484597. Epub 2013 Apr 3
²Finer, L. (2005). Reasons U.S. women have abortions: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 37(3), 110–18.
Coleman, P.K., Maxey, C., Spence, M., Nixon, C. (2009). Predictors and correlates of abortion in the fragile families and well-being study: Paternal behavior, substance use, and partner violence. Int J Ment Health Addict., 7(3), 405–22.
³Rue, V. (1996). His abortion experience: The effects of abortion on men. Ethics and Medics, 21(4), 3–4.
Coyle, C. (2007). Men and abortion: A review of empirical reports. Internet J of Mental Health, 3(2).

President of Heartbeat International Dr. Peggy Hartshorn– “What a breath of fresh air it was to read this clear and articulate, first-hand account of a woman whose eyes were opened to the fact that abortion, far from advancing women's rights—or human rights for that matter—instead contributes to the increased and continued oppression of women.

“How fitting to come to grips with this truth in a Pregnancy Help Center, which for over 40 years have offered women in the United States and around the world the type of emotional support and practical resources needed in the midst of an unexpected or difficult pregnancy. Out of a sea of statistics showing that the pro-life movement is gaining ground in recent years, stories like Ms. Herrington's burst forth in vivid light and color, screaming, ‘Pregnancy Help Centers are good for America!’

“Today more than ever, physicians and everyone in the medical field have a critical role to play in the protection and cherishing of all life—born and preborn. Pregnancy Help Centers across the nation are adding and enhancing existing medical services, and they are in need of life-minded professionals from all corners of the medical field to lend their expertise to everything from medical advisory boards to staff physicians. What a joy it would be for the director of a local Pregnancy Help Center to receive a call from a pro-life medical professional in its community, asking what he or she can do to help save lives from the violence of abortion.”

Action

Medical pregnancy centers need physicians willing to volunteer as little as an hour per week to write orders, read ultrasounds and provide oversight to the nurse administering the medical services. To find a pregnancy center near you through a national pro-life organization:

• Care-Net centers: Go HERE to see centers in your region or call 703-554-8753 or email.
• Heartbeat International centers: email Heartbeat's Medical Specialist - SDammann@HeartbeatInternational.org

Resources

• Women’s Protection Project - state legislation
• CMDA Abortion Resources

Politics and abortion commentary published in USA Today

Published in USA Today, November 7, 2013, personal commentary by CMA VP for Government Relations, Jonathan Imbody - If only the GOP would throw up the white flag and surrender "hard-line positions on abortion" and other social issues, they might win like Democrats, suggests a USA editorial ("How GOP candidates can win: Our view," Nov. 6).

If Republicans had followed such advice in the nineteenth century, we would still be trading in slaves.

A 2013 Gallup poll revealed that by at least a 17-point margin, women, independents and young voters all favored the GOP position of making abortion illegal in most cases. The movement against abortion on demand garners even more support when the specific abortion issue is parental consent, partial-birth abortion, second and third trimester abortions and informed consent.

Meanwhile, a Brookings Institution poll found that "Republicans have a better opportunity to attract Democratic defectors with … a socially conservative message than an economically conservative message."

Republicans' socially conservative position on abortion clearly syncs with American voters' values. Yet even if polling on abortion ran counter to the GOP platform, who could ever trust a political party that sacrificed on the altar of political expediency its commitment to the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?"

Resources

Washington Office More published commentaries by Jonathan Imbody and daily updates via Freedom2Care's blog, Twitter and Facebook.

Participate in CMDA's Voice of Christian Doctors Media Training

Action

Use the pre-written, customizable forms at CMA's legislative action website to encourage your legislators to pass life-honoring bills on abortion.

Sign up for CMDA's Freedom2Care coalition's Federal Registry on LinkedIn (registration is free) and stay updated with notices of opportunities plus tips, updates and discussions.