The Susan G. Komen Foundation, dedicated to finding a cure for breast cancer, is everywhere raising millions of dollars worldwide for its cause. Komen has gotten a black eye in recent years when it became public that Komen gives some of its funds to Planned Parenthood. In 2010 gifts to PP totaled $569,000, down from the $731,000 donated in 2009.
When asked, Komen states that gifts to Planned Parenthood are justified because PP does mammograms. The black eye got even darker when it was revealed that PP actually does not do mammograms, but routine breast exams that a woman can do on herself.
The biggest problem with the PP donation is that a legitimate abortion-breast cancer link has been documented in studies. So, Komen gives funds raised to cure breast cancer to an organization that is increasing breast cancer risk as the nation’s largest abortion provider.
This fall, Komen will have a “Race for the Cure” in Milwaukee. Every year, I am asked by friends to be on a team. Every year, I decline. There are better ways to fight breast cancer than to feed the abortion trough that is Planned Parenthood.
Joe Biden is famous for sticking his foot in his mouth. He did it again the other day when he excused China’s policy of brutally enforcing a limit of one child for most families.
How did the Obama Administration respond to Joe’s latest blathering? They trotted out a lower-level spokesperson to embarrass the Vice President of the United States by publicly correcting him, stating that the Administration really opposes China using forced abortions and sterilizations to enforce the policy.
Oh, really? Did the Administration “oppose” the policy when one of Obama’s first acts after his inauguration was to give millions of dollars to the U.N. agency that helps implement China’s coercive population program?
Did the Administration “oppose” the policy when it refused to comment about the abuses after official visits with Chinese leaders by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Obama himself?
National Right to Life leaders actually showed ultrasound images of unborn babies, displayed fetal models and passed out Precious Feet pins at a U.N. conference in China. If the Administration is so opposed to forced abortion, where is their similar sense of courage to speak up against it?
All we’ve heard from a ranking official of any kind is Biden stating “I fully understand” China’s position and “I’m not second-guessing” the brutal policy. Just another example of the Administration’s hypocrisy — say one thing, do another
Backers of doctor prescribed death recently filed paperwork with Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley to begin the process of bringing their plan, called the Death With Dignity Act, to the 2012 ballot. The proposed law asks voters to allow patients who will die within six months to ask for and receive a prescription for lethal drugs which the patient can take to end his/her own life. Under Massachusetts law, after certification of the proposal by the Attorney General, the legislature has three options: back the proposal, offer an alternative, or allow the measure to be placed on the November 2012 ballot.
Organizations pushing the legalization of doctor-prescribed death have been working hard to gain a foothold in the northeastern states. Following the 2010 election, proponents boldly predicted a legalization win in one state legislature (presumed to be Vermont) immediately followed by a ballot amendment in a second state (presumed to be Maine or Massachusetts). The 2011 effort to legalize doctor-prescribed death in the Vermont legislature failed but is likely to be renewed in 2012. Now, the push is on for Massachusetts where an enormous battle is expected in the legislature which may be followed by a vote of the general public.
Wisconsin Right to Life will continue in its role of advising and assisting states targeted for legalization of doctor prescribed death with renewed emphasis on these two critical northeastern states.
Randy O’Bannon of National Right to Life completed an exhaustive search of how much an abortion costs and how abortions are funded in the USA. Here is what he found, primarily from Guttmacher Institute reports:
The average cost of a first trimester surgical abortion at 10 weeks is $451. An RU 486 chemical abortion is about $483. Surgical abortions at 20 weeks are $1,500 or more.
For 2008, about 20% of abortions were paid for by Medicaid. That would represent about 242,480 of the 1,212,400 abortions performed that year.
Private insurers paid for about 12% of abortions which would be 145,488 abortions.
An additional 13% were paid for by “financial assistance programs such as private abortion funds and reduced fees to cover some or all of the cost of the service,” according to Guttmacher. That would be 157,612 abortions. There are private abortion funds in 40 states including the Wisconsin Women’s Medical Fund, Inc. which claims to have helped fund 15,000 abortions. Read about this fund here.
In summary, it appears that over 40% of abortions are paid for by state programs, private insurance or special abortion funds. As Randy O’Bannon states, “In one sense, it doesn’t matter whether the clinic gets its money from the woman or from state health programs, insurance or special funds, since it gets paid either way. However the more that people can count on others to pick up the tab, the more they are likely to access the service.
“….whenever a child is aborted, we all pay for that loss in multiple ways….a woman still bears the cost in her empty arms and broken heart. And the child pays the ultimate price of all, giving up his or her life.”
It is called selective abortion and has been practiced, supposedly for medical reasons, to “protect” some babies when there are too many in the mother’s womb. Multiple births have become much more common with IVF and fertility drugs resulting in more women carrying three or more children. Because of apprehension about the ability of all the babies to survive due to lack of space in the womb, selective abortion for those women who choose it is done by injecting potassium chloride into the hearts of some of the babies to “reduce”their number.
In an extensive article appearing in the New York Times Sunday Magazine, Ruth Padawer states: “For all its successes, reproductive medicine has produced a paradox: In creating life where none seemed possible, doctors often generate more fetuses than they intend. In the mid-1980s, they devised an escape hatch to deal with these megapregnancies, terminating all but two or three fetuses to lower the risks to women and the babies they took home. But what began as an intervention for extreme medical circumstances has quietly become an option for women carrying twins. With that, pregnancy reduction shifted from a medical decision to an ethical dilemma.”
In other words, what started as a means to curb the birth of triplets, quads, etc., has now become an increasingly-used option to reduce twins to a single birth. According to Padawer, Dr. Richard Berkowitz insists that there is no clear medical benefit to reducing below twins but he will do it if a patient requests it. “In a society where women can terminate a single pregnancy for any reason — financial, social, emotional — if we have a way to reduce a twin pregnancy with very little risk, isn’t it legitimate to offer that service to women with twins who want to reduce to a singleton?”
We, of course, find it abhorrent to inject any baby with a lethal substance with the clear intent to kill the child. But, notice, that in the never-ending quest to legitimize any abortion request, it is now becoming “acceptable” to exercise a “choice” to ensure that you only have one child at a time. Here’s the million dollar question: if you are a mother who has killed one of her twins, what, if anything, does she tell the surviving child? It is too awful to complicate.
Read the New York Times Sunday Magazine article here.
Six down, two more to go. This coming Tuesday, August 16 the remaining two recall elections will take place in the 12th and 22nd State Senate Districts.
In the 12th, Republican Kim Simac has been endorsed by the Wisconsin Right to Life PAC. When it comes to the right-to-life, Kim is a true believer! Contrast her position with the sitting senator, pro-abortion Jim Holperin. Holperin recently voted against a budget motion to stop the flow of tax dollars to organizations, like Planned Parenthood, that perform abortions. He voted against another budget motion to prevent UW from using its physicians and facilities for the performance of abortions. Both of these motions passed handily, no thanks to Holperin.
In the 22nd, Wisconsin Right to Life PAC-endorsed candidate, Jonathan Steitz, is challenging the outrageously pro-abortion incumbent Robert Wirch. Wirch has a 0% right-to-life voting record. I could go on and on about Wirch’s pro-abortion record….but you get the idea.
If you live in either of these districts, get out and vote on August 16!
Sue Armacost
Authorized and paid for by the Wisconsin Right to Life PAC, Richard Fox, Treasurer. Not authorized by any candidate, candidate’s agent or committee.
We are celebrating that the State Senate will remain in the hands of a right-to-life majority. We know you are too. Senators Alberta Darling, Robert Cowles, Luther Olsen and Sheila Harsdorf were strongly backed by the Wisconsin Right to Life PAC. Planned Parenthood and the pro-abortion crowd worked for their pro-abortion challengers. But it all comes down to voter turnout. Planned Parenthood may have had more money and resources but we outmatched them in turning out our voters. And that’s what counts in any election!
We will greatly miss Senators Dan Kapanke and Randy Hopper who lost their elections. They are right-to-life stalwarts and we wish them the very best.
Our grateful thanks to all of you who volunteered your time to help in these elections. And many thanks also to those who cast their votes for the Wisconsin Right to Life PAC-supported candidates. This is YOUR victory!
The babies are the real winners in keeping a right-to-life majority in the State Senate. Our life-saving legislative agenda can continue to move forward.
All of us still have plenty of work to do in the two remaining recall elections to take place on August 16. So now we turn our full attention to those races.
Today, Tuesday August 9, is election day in six state senate districts around the state. There will be two additional state senate elections on Tuesday, August 16.
At stake in all of these elections is the state senate majority…. will it remain in the hands of a right-to-life majority or will it be turned over to pro-abortion zealots? If the zealots win, unborn babies lose! It’s as simple as that.
Every right-to-life supporter who lives in a state senate district where an election is taking place and has not yet voted needs to get to their polling place today and on August 16 to vote for right-to-life candidates. It only takes a little bit of time and isn’t that the least we can do for the precious babies who cannot speak for themselves?
Here are the candidates the Wisconsin Right to Life PAC is supporting:
Robert Cowles - 2nd State Senate district - August 9 election
Alberta Darling - 8th State Senate district - August 9 election
Sheila Harsdorf - 10th State Senate district - August 9 election
Kim Simac - 12th State Senate district - August 16 election
Luther Olsen - 14th State Senate district - August 9 election
RandyHopper - 18th State Senate district - August 9 election
Jonathan Steitz - 22nd State Senate district - August 16 election
Dan Kapanke -32nd State Senate district - August 9 election
Every right-to-life candidate running in today’s elections have opponents who are pro-abortion radicals AND they are also supported by Planned Parenthood, the organization the performs most of the abortions in Wisconsin! Don’t let these pro-abortion radicals win these State Senate seats!
If you live in one of the election districts, for life’s sake, get out and vote for Wisconsin Right to Life PAC-supported candidates
Sue Armacost
Authorized and paid for by the Wisconsin Right to Life PAC, Richard Fox, Treas. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s agent or committee.
On Monday, a federal judge ordered a temporary injunction blocking a new Kansas law that prioritizes recipients of Title X federal reimbursement to be full service public health clinics and hospitals. Planned Parenthood is not a full service provider so it would no longer qualify to receive the Title X funds under the new law.
Meanwhile, a U.S. District judge blocked an Indiana law from going into effect. That law states that any “entity” that performs abortions would be cut off from state funds, including Medicaid funding. Because it is an abortion provider, Planned Parenthood would no longer qualify for this funding under the law.
The attorneys general of both states are appealing the rulings.
Even though the two states take different approaches in their respective laws, the end result would be the same … Planned Parenthood would no longer receive substantial amounts of taxpayer dollars. And for an organization that has been receiving these funds for decades, they are in full crisis mode. The Obama Administration has weighed in regarding the Indiana law by threatening to cut off millions in Medicaid funds if Indiana doesn’t relent.
The attorneys general of both states are determined to vigorously defend their respective laws. Say a prayer for Kansas and Indiana and stay tuned!
Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Center, reports that Australia is attempting to legalize euthanasia on two fronts. Schadenberg reveals that a euthanasia bill passed a second reading in the South Australian lower house. The bill is terrifying in its scope. It permits physicians near absolute power to directly cause the death of their patients and steers people with disabilities and others with chronic conditions toward euthanasia.
As expected, the bill is being touted by its supporters as an end-of-life decisions bill and not a euthanasia bill. But as Schadenberg puts it, “The bill must be seen for what it is. It is a law designed to impose death on the most vulnerable in society. The bill is not concerned with the veneer of choice or autonomy because it is designed to give the power over life and death to physicians. This bill will turn healers into killers and it will redefine the nature of medical care in Australia. The bill is a travesty of justice.”
If that were not bad enough, the Australian federal parliament is considering another bill that would enable the Northern Territory of Australia to once again legalize euthanasia. The country’s Northern Territory had legalized euthanasia in 1995 but the Australian federal government overturned that law in 1997. Euthanasia proponents want the Northern Territory to legalize euthanasia once again.
To follow these very disturbing turn of events in Australia, we urge you to visit Alex Schadenburg’s blog at http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com
![[Email]](http://www.wrtl.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.wrtl.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://www.wrtl.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Twitter]](http://www.wrtl.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
