Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) recently posted 2009 “service” numbers on its website. The document, which had a February 2011 date, shows that PPFA and its affiliates performed 332,278 surgical and RU 486 chemical abortions in 2009. PPFA increases its abortions every year with 289,750 performed in 2006.
In contrast, PPFA shows declines in the number of women who receive prenatal services and adoption referrals. In 2009, only 7.021 women received prenatal care and 977 adoption services. These numbers are a 25% and 59% drop, respectively, from 2008.
PPFA recently stated it will require all of its affiliates to provide abortions by 2013. By providing minimal non-abortion services, PPFA manages to fool at least some of the public into thinking it is an even-handed, compassionate organization. No more. Many are beginning to recognize PPFA for the abortion giant it is.
For years, proponents have “sold” abortion as a private decision between a woman and her doctor. In practice, this is far from reality. Abortionists are, by and large, solo practitioners who have no patients. Women referred to abortion clinics generally see the abortionist for the first time when the abortion procedure begins. Even follow-up care occurs somewhere other than the abortion clinic.
Planned Parenthood has invented a new abortion procedure that puts women at more risk and even farther removed from her “doctor.” In an Iowa experiment, PP used web cams to “counsel” women in remote locations about RU-486 chemical abortion pills. The woman is not physically examined in person by a doctor and does not have follow-up or emergency care readily available. The abortionist asks question using the web cam and then allows a drawer containing the deadly meds to be accessed. PP wants to expand web cam abortions across the country.
Rep. Steve King of Iowa and 71 members of Congress have written to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a known abortion and late-term abortion advocate, asking if the $11.6 million allocated for telemedicine programs developed for rural areas includes web cam abortions. In the letter, King says “RU-486 is a dangerous drug that has been associated with at least 11 deaths and thousands of cases of excessive bleeding and infection. Evading FDA guidelines by dispensing RU-486 through telemedicine has the potential to increase complications and fatalities associated with its use. We cannot allow taxpayer dollars to be used to support telemed abortions.”
We know that PP of WI has web cams. That is why one of the legislative priorities of Wisconsin Right to Life is to require in person examinations of women seeking abortions so that web cam abortions cannot occur in our state.
Wisconsin Right to Life joins our parent organization, The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), in expressing strong approval of action today by the U.S. House of Representatives which 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. Planned Parenthood of Milwaukee was one of the affiliates named in the prohibition.
“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.
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 .
“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.
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) has issued an urgent Action Alert stating that the U.S. House will vote this morning on the Amendment to defund Planned Parenthood! The Pence Amendment, offered by Congressman Mike Pence (R-In.), would deny all federal funds through September 30, for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., and 102 PPFA affiliates, which are named in the text of the amendment. Planned Parenthood of Milwaukee, WI is one of the affiliates named.
The House debated the amendment, but did not vote, on February 17. The amendment is to H.R. 1, a bill that would fund the government through September 30, 2011.
On February 14, NRLC sent House members a letter urging them to support the Pence Amendment, saying, “PPFA is the nation’s largest abortion provider, reporting 324,008 abortions in 2008. It appears that abortion accounts for roughly one-third of the aggregate income generated by PPFA-affiliated clinics. 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 an additional justification for the amendment.”
Wisconsin Right to Life urges everyone to contact their Congressman and request support for the Pence Amendment to H.R. 1. It is far past time to defund Planned Parenthood.
The National Right to Life Committee has issued an Action Alert regarding multiple abortion-related amendments to H.R. 1, the bill to fund all federal programs through September 30, 2011. Among the measures to receive a vote are the following:
The Pence amendment which would deny all federal funds for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and 102 PPFA affiliates which are named in the text of the amendment. National Right to Life sent a letter to House members urging a vote for the Pence Amendment that can be found here.
An amendment which would restore the ban on government funding of abortion in the District of Columbia.
An amendment to restore and codify the Mexico City Policy which prohibits federal funds from going to organizations overseas that provide or promote abortions.
An amendment to block any additional U.S. funds from going to the UNFPA which for decades has been a cheerleader for, and an active participant in, China’s ruthless birth-quota system which relies on forced abortions.
An amendment to prevent the expenditure of funds to rescind the Bush conscience-protection regulation.
Wisconsin Right to Life has forwarded the Action Alert to Wisconsin residents, urging them to contact their Congressmen.
A study in the New England Journal of Medicine on the outcome for babies with spina bifida who underwent in utero surgery is so uplifting it caught the attention of ABC News. Children with spina bifida can experience brain and nerve damage including paralysis from a condition where the spine fails to close. A baby born with spina bifida is likely to have surgery shortly after birth to close the spine.
But, now medicine has found a better way to repair the spine — by removing the baby from the mother’s womb at about 19-25 weeks, repairing the spine, and placing the baby back into the womb. The mother generally gives birth by C-section.
In the study, children with spina bifida were followed so that outcomes could be compared between children who had in utero surgery and those who had surgery post-birth. The study reports that 40% of the children who had in utero surgery needed a shunt placed in the brain, compared to 82% of those who had post-birth surgery. “The fetal surgery group scored higher on combined tests of mental development and motor skills at 2 1/2 years, though there was no difference in congnitive function alone,” the report states. “Forty-two percent of the toddlers in the fetal surgery group could walk without crutches or other support versus 21percent in the other group.” In addition, fetal surgery children were 30% less like to need follow-up surgeries.
Dr. Scott Adzick, first author of the study, told ABC News, “This is a big breakthrough. For the first time we can show a clear cut benefit, treating a non life threatening malformation by repairing it before birth.” One of the children featured in the news story who had in utero surgery is now 10 and walks without crutches or a wheelchair.
What a novel idea — treating the unborn baby as the separate patient he or she actually is. We agree with Dr. Adzick who says “I don’t think it gets better than that.”
As the recent vote in the Senate makes clear, a complete repeal and replacement of ObamaCare will likely require a change in the composition of the Senate, currently under the control of Democrats who support the law, and the kind of President who understands that genuine health care “reform” does not contain provisions that will result in the denial of lifesaving medical treatment, and consequently, the premature and involuntary death of an unknown but immense number of Americans.
An important step in reversing this aspect of ObamaCare is HR452, which would repeal the “Independent Payment Advisory Board” in the Obama HealthCare Law. National Right to Life strongly supports its passage. Why?
Take a moment and think back to President Obama’s State of the Union Address. He said, “The health insurance law we passed last year will slow these rising costs.” And he called for “further reducing health care costs.”
On the principle that the devil is in the details, how WILL the Obama health care law “slow . . . rising costs”? In large part by forcing doctors and other health care providers to limit care.
Put another way, under Obamacare doctors and hospitals will no longer be free to determine, in consultation with the patient, what treatment and diagnostic tests are best suited to the patient’s condition. Instead, as a condition of being allowed to contract with qualified health insurance plans, all doctors and other health care providers will have to comply with “quality and efficiency” standards imposed by Washington. The objective is straightforward: force private health care spending below the rate of medical inflation.
Note: These “quality and efficiency” standards will establish one uniform national standard of care for what treatment may – and may not – be offered patients.
So, who will establish these all-important “quality and efficiency” standards?
Unless there is a change, such as HR 452 promotes, they will be drawn from the recommendations of an Independent Payment Advisory Board.
This little-publicized 18-member board is at the heart of the law’s rationing of life-saving medical treatment. Starting in 2015 and every two years thereafter, the Obama health care law directs this board to recommend ways to prevent private citizens from being allowed the choice of spending enough on health care to keep up with medical inflation.
What this amounts to is that doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers will be told by Washington bureaucrats 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.
You don’t have to be a medical economist to understand that the consequence of ever-increasing limits on the treatments and tests American health care providers will be allowed to give their patients will be that the quantity and quality of the health care will go into a steady decline As the standard of medical care is strangled more and more year after year, involuntary denial of lifesaving treatment will become commonplace.
This commentary was written by Dave Andrusko of National Right to Life
Yesterday, the Wisconsin Right to Life Political Action Committee asked a federal court to prevent Wisconsin’s public funding scheme from being implemented for Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates, asserting it is an unconstitutional infringement of their First Amendment free speech rights. The case will be heard in the Wisconsin western district federal court before Judge William Conley on March 2 at 9:00am.
Under the scheme, supreme court candidates who agree not to fundraise are given initial campaign funds from the state of $300,000, with additional “rescue fund” money of up to $900,000, depending on the amount spent by third parties and their opponents. Those who do not take public funding are limited to $1,000 contributions.
Wisconsin Right to Life’s PAC plans to spend its own money supporting candidates for the upcoming 2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court race. Wisconsin Right to Life wants to stop the inclusion of non-candidate spending in determining when a publicly funded candidate has been out-spent by a traditionally funded opponent and is entitled to rescue funds. The request would also halt rules that require additional reports on its spending because the reports are in place solely to make sure candidates receive additional public funding. Prosperity PAC and Mr. George Mitchell are also plaintiffs who want to give more than $1,000 and seek to enjoin the $1,000 contribution limit.
According to James Bopp, Jr., counsel for all three plaintiffs, “under this system, simply running an ad against a candidate can result in that candidate getting more taxpayer money.” Says Bopp, “people are chilled from speaking in support of a candidate because doing so will likely result in providing additional funds to that candidate’s opponent. And donors are limited in how much they can give to discourage candidates from choosing not to participate.”
The case is Wisconsin Right to Life v. Brennan, et al., 3:09-cv-764. The memo for injunctive relief is available in PDF online at the James Madison Center’s website, here, under the “WRTL v. Brennan.”
James Bopp, Jr. has a national federal and state election law practice. He is General Counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech and former Co-Chairman of the Election Law Subcommittee of the Federalist Society. Mr. Bopp argued and won the Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC landmark free speech case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007.
Wisconsin Right to Life strongly supports efforts to finally and permanently take the federal government out of subsidizing abortions. For over 30 years, protecting the taxpayer from having to pay for abortions has been an annual process subject to the whim of whomever is in control of Congress. The situation was aggravated by passage of Obamacare with its abortion components and subsidies.
Hearings will occur this week on two right-to-life bills in the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution and the House Subcommittee on Health. The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), would be a government-wide prohibition on taxpayer subsidization for abortion with conscience protections. The Protect Life Act, sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA), is similar to the Stupak-Pitts amendment to Obamacare and would prohibit abortion subsidies and mandates in every component of the massive 2010 health care law.
“Public opinion is strongly against federal subsidies for abortion, and any member of Congress who is truly opposed to federal funding of abortion will vote for both of these bills,” said National Right to Life Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. “If President Obama seeks to obstruct these bills, that will provide additional glaring evidence that his professions of opposition to public funding of abortion are phony.”
Pro-abortion groups, of course, are making the same predictable shrill arguments they have been making for 30 years to attempt to convince an unwilling public that paying for abortions is a good use of our money. These bills insert government into women’s health care issues, deny women access to much-needed medical services, put the lives of women in danger, they state.
It is widely recognized that if abortions are not subsidized with taxpayer dollars, abortions decrease by about 25%. The lifesaving impact of these two bills cannot be overstated. It’s time to move forward by permanently taking the government out of the abortion business.
As President Bush left office, he expanded conscience protections for medical professionals who do not want to participate in abortions. The Bush regulations did not create new law, they expanded enforcement of three existing federal conscience protection laws: the Church Amendment, the Public Health Service Act Section 245, and the Weldon Amendment. President Bush was concerned that these laws were not being enforced and illegal discrimination against pro-life medical professionals was occurring.
The Obama Administration has been working since March of 2009 to rescind these conscience protections, stating in a recent court filing that its final conscience rule will be announced before March 1, 2011. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has proposed requiring referrals for abortion as an Ethics rule for the nation’s OB-GYNs. Once the conscience rule is rescinded, it is possible that a pro-life doctor could lose his/her board certification for refusing to participate in abortions.
It isn’t enough for abortion proponents to have legal abortion on demand . They want to force an abortion regime on our medical professionals. This is a sad day for those who devote their lives to saving lives, not destroying them.