The Facts on S. Dakota Reasonable Initiated Measure 11

In 2006, the voters of South Dakota spoke loudly. They wanted to stop most abortions in South Dakota, but also wanted reasonable exceptions to allow women to have abortions in cases of rape, incest, life and health of the mother. Initiated Measure 11 meets the demands to include these exceptions. This is a reasonable law requested by the people of South Dakota.

Current public polling shows a majority of South Dakota voters would vote “Yes” on Initiated Measure 11. The campaign expects the number will increase to a healthy majority by election day and that the measure will pass with a large margin in November. “After this passes, we will be out on the road with the Fleet for Little Fleet, AKA the big bus, ministering to and helping women and families across the state of South Dakota,” Leslee Unruh stated. Regarding the defeat of Referred Law 6 in 2006, Unruh acknowledged, “I felt terrible for the women, families and children of South Dakota who still had to deal with the scourge of abortion. I especially grieved for the post abortive women who gave their heart and soul working on the campaign.”

South Dakota voters have responded with fervor! 58,000 people signed the petition to stop abortions from being used as birth control. South Dakota has never seen that kind of support for a ballot initiative. Now voters are going out into their communities spreading the word about Initiated Measure 11. From parade walking to attending county fairs, the people of South Dakota are passionate about life and working hard to get this reasonable law passed in November.

It is unfortunate that the opposition to Initiated Measure 11 is running their campaign from Washington, DC. The VoteYesForLife.com campaign is based in South Dakota and run by South Dakotans. It is clear that the national pro-abortion community is making their last stand in South Dakota by bringing in “big guns” such as Cecile Richards, President of National Planned Parenthood, and leaders from National Abortion Rights Action League. The opposing campaign is shamelessly on their knees, begging for national help with this South Dakota law.

Source: Christian Newswire

Abortionist attempts to coerce woman into an abortion

— From a letter written by Luis Mendoza

We were blessed with two prayer warriors and a Christian gentleman named Paul who helps with the sidewalk counseling. A Hispanic woman in her mid-30s and her 12-year-old son approached the abortion mill. I intercepted them just a few feet from the mill’s door. I told them about how this abortuary had been in the news lately because of the arrest of the owner, who was allegedly doing abortions without a medical license. (See “Subjected to pain and risk of great bodily injury,” California Catholic Daily, June 23, 2008.)

As I was showing them a front-page article entitled, “Doctors Without Licenses” in a local Spanish-language newspaper, a heavyset medical assistant opened the front door. With a demonic grin on her face, she told the woman to come in so that she would not miss her appointment — and to ignore us because we are just protestors.

About 30 minutes after the abortionist arrived, the woman and her son left the mill. She told me that she had decided to leave because the abortionist really was pressuring her to have this abortion. She came to this mill because a doctor in Tijuana had told her that the rubella vaccination she had could have affected her baby. The doctor suggested she go see a doctor who could check out the health of the baby. If the baby was damaged, she may want to consider an abortion.

The woman said that the Clinica Medica abortionist told her that she was four months pregnant. She said she knew that this was a lie because she knew when her menstrual cycle had stopped. She believes he was saying this to charge more money since a second trimester abortion costs more than one in the first trimester. When the woman said she wanted to think this over, the abortionist got really pushy, she said, telling her the procedure was quick and it was best to do it now. She got very angry with his pushiness, she said, and left. She asked for directions to the Culture of Life Family Services clinic, so I gave her a COLFS brochure that contains a map. She said she would make an appointment to go there as soon as possible. I also gave her a Rosary. This woman’s name begins with “M.” Please keep her in your prayers.

Source: California Daily Catholic

Congressmen Thwart US Support for UN Abortion Initiative

From the 22 May C-FAM FridayFax report titled “Pro-Life Congressmen Thwart US Support for UN Abortion Initiative” written by Piero A. Tozzi and Susan Yoshihara.

Pro-life congressmen, lead by Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Bart Stupak (D-MI), rescued a congressional resolution supporting reduction of women’s mortality at home and abroad from surreptitiously advancing the pro-abortion agenda advanced at the United Nations. House Resolution 1022, as now drafted, promotes both “maternal health and child survival” without a stealth promotion of abortion.

The language that was removed by Smith and Stupak called for funding of “global initiatives” and the recognition of maternal health as a “human right.” Using such language would have lent U.S. support for a new pro-abortion initiative launched at a London conference last October called “Women Deliver.” At the Women Deliver conference pro-abortion advocates launched the International Initiative on Maternal Mortality and Human Rights that seeks to link the maternal mortality issue with access to abortion while furthering development of “soft law” norms that include abortion as a human right.

Among those launching the initiative at the Women Deliver conference were UN Population Fund (UNFPA) Executive Director Thoraya Obaid, the initiative’s architect and then UN Special Rapporteur for Health, Paul Hunt, and the President of the pro-abortion law firm and secretariat for the initiative Center for Reproductive Rights, Nancy Northrup. Northrup stated at the launching that she believes UN treaties already contain an international right to abortion and she would work through the initiative and with UN partners to further that understanding and bind UN member states to recognize that right.

The Women Deliver conference, organized and chaired by the world’s top abortion advocates, including International Planned Parenthood Federation, Ipas and “Catholics” for a Free Choice, was also sponsored by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Health Organization in addition to the UNFPA.

House Resolution 1022’s primary sponsor, Lois Capps (D-CA), was one of three members of Congress that attended the Women Deliver conference. A number of pro-life members of Congress, unaware of the provenance of the global initiative and health rights language, originally signed onto the draft version of the resolution.

One misstatement that remains uncorrected in the present version is assertion that “an estimated 536,000 women die during pregnancy and childbirth” – a number touted at the Women Deliver conference but unsubstantiated by the UN’s own statisticians. The UN Population Division report The World’s Women 2005: Progress in Statistics states that “more than a third of the 204 countries or areas examined did not report the number of deaths by sex even once for the period 1995 to 2003 . . . About half did not report deaths by cause, sex and age at least once in the same period.”

In a statement preceding passage of the bill, Rep. Smith pointed out that “when women receive proper prenatal care, they are less likely to die in childbirth,” adding that the final form of the resolution “does not endorse – in any way whatsoever – the cruel ideology that pits women against babies by suggesting abortion as a means of combating maternal mortality.”

________________________________

C-FAM (Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute) is a leading global pro-life organization fighting for for families, the unborn, and for human decency around the world. A major New York donor has offered $100,000 for a matching donation challenge. If interested in helping C-FAM, please visit their website. C-FAM’s website offers the latest global family news, special issue reports and white papers, information about their latest campaigns, as well as aways to donate.

Abortion: A greater mental health risk than unwanted pregnancy

From More About the Connection Between Abortion and Depression by David Andrusko.

The headline from an article in the Sunday [London] Times absolutely stunned me: “Royal college [of Psychiatrists] warns abortions can lead to mental illness.”

Not the substance of the observation–that “The Royal College of Psychiatrists says women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health”–mind you. That only makes sense.

What threw me for a loop was that for once a medical authority in Great Britain (a) did not march in lockstep with the pro-abortion lobby, and (b) did so as Parliament is considering its first major change in abortion law in 20 years.

The Royal College recommends that abortion information leaflets be updated to include details of the risks of depression. “Consent cannot be informed without the provision of adequate and appropriate information,” it says.

What could overthrow what health editor Sarah-Kate Templeton described as a long-standing consensus that “the risk to mental health of continuing with an unwanted pregnancy outweighs the risks of living with the possible regrets of having an abortion”?

Based on the Times story, it seems to be a combination of two elements.

First, scientific studies, including research published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry in 2006, which “concluded that abortion in young women might be associated with risks of mental health problems.”

The Royal College’s recommendation is hugely important, since, as the Times writes, “More than 90% of the 200,000 terminations in Britain every year are believed to be carried out because doctors believe that continuing with the pregnancy would cause greater mental strain.”

MP Nadine Dorries also welcomed the Royal College’s revised stance “For doctors to process a woman’s request for an abortion without providing the support, information and help women need at this time of crisis I regard almost as a form of abuse,” she said.

Fertility Treatment is Hugely Successful but Largely Ignored by Medicine

From LifeSite News Commentary by Thaddeus M. Baklinski

Natural Procreative Technology (NPT) is a dramatically successful, but not well known or practiced method of diagnosing and treating gynecological diseases and infertility in women. It is a morally acceptable and very cost effective method of restoring fertility, using a fertility-care based medical approach, rather than a fertility-control approach.

This new reproductive science works cooperatively with the natural fertility [menstrual] cycle. It has been developed as a series of medical applications based on a standardized assessment of the biomarkers of the fertility [menstrual] cycle, known as the Creighton Model FertilityCare System. It can be used to evaluate and treat infertility, miscarriage, irregular cycles, ovarian cysts, premenstrual syndrome, postpartum depression and many other women’s health conditions.

When used to treat infertility alone, NPT has a success rate of 76% in assisting couples to achieve pregnancy – remarkably superior to the 10-15% success rate of in vitro fertilization, and without the enormous financial cost and adverse emotional and other psychological effects of in vitro fertilization.

NPT was developed from thirty years of scientific research in the study of the normal and abnormal states of the menstrual and fertility cycles by Dr. Thomas W. Hilgers, director of the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction and the National Center for Women’s Health in Omaha, Nebraska. Dr. Hilgers is currently a senior medical consultant in obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive medicine and surgery at the Pope Paul VI Institute and a clinical professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Creighton University School of Medicine.

According to Dr. John B. Shea, medical consultant for LifeSiteNews.com, NPT has not been accepted by the majority of the medical profession because “in reference to female infertility, NPT competes against a well financed option, in vitro fertilization [IVF], that is already deeply entrenched in the marketplace and in political circles.”

“Furthermore, physicians who might be interested in NPT experience a lot of peer pressure to view NPT as an oddball kind of medical care simply because they had not heard of it in medical school,” Dr. Shea explained.

“Also, since NPT originated in the Pope Paul VI Institute, there may also be an element of anti-Catholic bias and an element of ‘go-along-to-get-along’ pressure involved.”

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), which maintains a fully staffed Office of Public Affairs in Washington D.C., and a web site that contains a vast amount of information on reproductive matters, does not have any information on NPT posted on its website.

Chuck Weber (http://www.saintmaxworldwide.org) has reported that a spokesperson for ASRM, when asked to comment on NPT, declined to comment, saying, “We tend to just ignore these people”.

In an article entitled “10 Reasons to Choose NaProTechnology Over InVitro Fertilization” by David Picella (http://www.majella.us), the moral implications of IVF are clearly delineated.

IVF involves the destruction of embryos: “An analysis of ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) data from 1983 to 1986 demonstrated that the transfer of 1,372 embryos (3.2 per woman) resulted in 81 live births. From this data, it is necessary to create 16.9 living embryos to produce one live birth. The higher reported rates of success for IVF procedures usually means more embryos are being transferred which increases the risk of multiple births.”

IVF necessitates “Selective Reduction”: “One of the most objectionable things about IVF is that it can result in a situation where a woman is forced to deal with a dangerously high multiple pregnancy rate. Pregnancy risk increases dramatically with the number of babies in the womb. Frequently, women are compelled to selectively “reduce” (i.e., kill) additional babies in the womb due to unacceptably high pregnancy risk.”

NPT employs natural sexual intercourse rather than a laboratory procedure: “In IVF, the sperm and eggs (gametes) are collected through masturbation (male) and harvesting (female) where they meet in a laboratory to form embryos which are then reintroduced into the woman’s body. NPT, on the other hand, relies on a natural act of intercourse to achieve pregnancy.”

For more information about the NPT, go here, here, and here.

Women, if you get an abortion your baby will be thrown out in a back alley dumpster

Here is the dumpster.

According to CitizenLink Daily editor Jennifer Mesko, The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has ordered abortionist Alberto Hodari to retrain employees at all six of his Michigan abortion mills after medical waste — including human remains — was discovered in one of his Dumpsters.

Monica Miller, director of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society, said the DEQ “failed miserably” by not fining Hodari over the violations.

“I think it’s pretty pathetic,” she said. “This was not an isolated incident. The DEQ knows it was not an isolated incident.

“I don’t understand why they’re not willing to make a case against him.”

A letter sent by the state to Hodari outlined three medical waste-disposal violations that were found March 10 when police and state officials examined the trash outside his Lathrup Village abortion clinic, The Detroit News reported. The letter asked Hodari to retrain employees at all WomanCare locations.

Miller said the violations “show how absolutely sordid the abortion experience is.”

“Women need to know,” she said, “if they are going to get an abortion, their baby is ending up in the trash Dumpster behind the clinic.”

Hodari blamed the violations on a new employee. A follow-up inspection by the state is scheduled for next week. Lathrup Village police are investigating reports that patient records also were found in the trash.

Jennifer Nelson, who said she found medical waste in the trash receptacle at the WomanCare facility in Southgate, agreed with Miller. “The DEQ is being grossly negligent,” she told The News. “They are giving (Hodari) a little slap on the wrist.”

Maybe Michigan citizens should complain very loudly at the frivolous justice demonstrated by their officials. Miller maybe right about this being a widespread problem, but she pointed out the key issue. The abortion facility is run by the state; otherwise how could she expect the state officials to fire Hodari? I wonder how much revenues the state of Michigan get from its abortion mills.

1 in 4 Teen Girls Has Sexually Transmitted Infection

One in four teen girls in the U.S. has a sexually transmitted infection (STI), according to a study by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That adds up to more than 3 million girls.

Among girls who admitted having had sex, the rate was 40 percent, The Associated Press reported. Human papilloma virus (HPV), which causes cervical cancer, is the most common STI in teen girls ages 14 to 19, the CDC found.

But the CDC conference in Chicago, where the study was released, ignored a key component, said Linda Klepacki, sexual health analyst for Focus on the Family Action.

“With such high disease rates in teenagers, we’re just missing a tremendous opportunity to talk to them about the benefits of being abstinent until marriage,” she told Family News in Focus. “This is the time to teach kids about personal accountability and abstinence education. As it looks from this conference, the CDC is not grabbing that opportunity and taking it.”

Klepacki said not only is the abstinence-until-marriage message left out of the discussion at these conferences, the topic is often mocked by experts at the CDC.

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said bad public policy is to blame for the STI epidemic.

“Current public health policies are clearly failing to reduce the spread of STDs among young women,” she said. “Public health officials need to admit their failures that have led to kids paying the price. Funding irresponsible sex-ed programs, ones that encourage kids to be sexually active, 12 times higher than funding abstinence programs unsurprisingly results in more kids being sexually active.”

Klepacki added: “In addition, after the government funds education to assist kids in becoming sexually active, the taxpayers have to pay $15.5 billion more per year for health care to take care of STIs. Taxpayers, it’s time to say enough is enough!”

Source: CitizenLink Daily

Child Care and Employer-Provided Health Insurance Help Low-Income Mothers Keep Jobs

A new report by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) examines key factors related to job retention and job mobility among low-income women. Based on an analysis of the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), Keeping Moms on the Job: The Impacts of Health Insurance and Child Care on Job Retention and Mobility among Low-Income Mothers examines what helps and what hinders employment stability among working mothers, contrasting low- and higher-income women workers.

Dr. Sunhwa Lee, Study Director, said: “We found that employer-provided health insurance and the availability of child care, including care by relatives, are crucial for improving job retention among low-income mothers. Higher wage levels also make it less likely that mothers would leave their job.” The study considers personal/family characteristics, job characteristics, and work supports such as health insurance, child care subsidies, and child care arrangements. The report shows that low-income mothers have a higher rate of job turnover compared with higher-income mothers and identifies reasons for job separation.

Only about one-third of low-income working mothers have health coverage from their own employers, while over half of higher-income mothers do. Higher- income working mothers are also much more likely to have health coverage from other sources such as that provided through a spouse’s employment. Only five percent of higher-income mothers have no coverage at all, while more than one-quarter (28 percent) of low- income mothers do not have any type of health insurance when they are employed. In addition, although child care subsidies are available for some low-income women, only 7 percent of low-income working mothers indicated receiving any kind of help to pay for child care, including from the government, employers, or family members.

The study finds that keeping a job, obtaining a new job, and moving up to a better job all pose distinct challenges for low-income women. It suggests that policies directed toward welfare leavers or low-wage workers need to include diverse support strategies including job placement strategies aimed at finding a good job, college education that helps mothers move up in pay when changing jobs, as well as increasing health coverage by employers and improving access to child care that is affordable, reliable, and flexible.

I’m all for the original SCHIP program and even for additional health care assistance by the government for low-income workers. What the above study fails to consider is long-term solutions to the problem. The study assumes the rightness of the political economy. The problem is the free market is not free and unregulated and the lions share of welfare is paid for by workers not employers.

The above study approaches the low-income issue from a short-term view. It is a view that ignores the injustice of a government-subsidized corporate economy. As income gap disparities prove, the current political economy is beneficial to a relative few but a problem to millions. If the existence of government and business is for the good of people and their communities, then any pay scale other than one on which any and all employees can live and pay for a mortgage, household goods, food, clothing, some entertainment, utilities, transportation, insurance, health care, and child care is unjust and illegal.

The argument that doing so would raise the price of goods is erroneous. It is bogus when approached by reducing top management pay scales and reducing return-on-investment of corporate finance. That is a substantial part of a real economic solution to the poverty problem. As Adam Smith advocated, the true measure of a nation’s wealth is how many of its citizens enjoy the fruit of its productivity. Near full-employment is a false measure of economic health when large numbers of capable workers are eligible for welfare assistance. It must not be forgotten that household work or homemaking is of comparable value to families and society.

Source: Institute for Women’s Policy Research

Alliance for Marriage Past, Present and Future

Alliance for Marriage (AFM) was founded in 1999 to confront the alarming fact that over 25 million American children — more than one of every three — were being raised in a broken home. This is not only a disaster for these children; it’s a disaster for our society. Our most serious social problems — from youth crime to dropout rates — track far more closely with family breakdown than they do with other social variables like race or poverty.

AFM’s mission was — and is — to see more children raised in a home with a mother and father. AFM has worked for adoption tax credits, for the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, and forother common sense reforms to help strengthen families in America. At the time of our founding, amending the U.S. Constitution to protect marriage was something that no one dreamed would be needed.

Then all of that changed.

During the first year of AFM’s existence, it became clear that powerful forces were working through the courts to destroy the legal status of marriage and the family in America. These forces are well-financed and determined to destroy the common sense definition of marriage under our laws.

Our laws need to send a positive message to kids – especially given the constant bombardment of negative messages, values and signals they encounter each day. So it became obvious that if AFM was to help rebuild a culture of intact families in America, we would also have to work to defend the legal status of marriage as the union of a man and a woman – our best hope for providing families with mothers and fathers for kids.

Since then, America’s foes have continued to redouble their efforts. At the national, state and local level, they continue their assault on our marriage laws as part of a systematic plan for destroying marriage. This activist movement is backed by the vast financial resources of gay philanthropists and others who want to refashion our laws and our society in the image of their own socially destructive values.

It was realized that if these stealth forces were victorious in changing the institution of marriage from being between one man and one woman, our mission of more children raised in homes with both a mother and father would be exponentially more difficult to achieve. AFM simply could not stand by and let that happen, and so we engaged in this fight.

The battle to protect marriage has been a long struggle, and one we wish it weren’t necessary to wage. But because of our efforts and your support, we have unmasked and slowed the progress of the powerful forces seeking to destroy the American family.

Families with a mother and a father are the foundation upon which our country was built, and we remain committed to defending the traditional family while promoting its importance, so that more kids are raised in a home with a mom and a dad.

AFM’s latest challenge in the effort is to put public pressure on both political parties to protect traditional marriage. AFM organizing a national campaign and coalition, specifically targeting Hispanic Americans, to stand up and let their voices be heard, including a high-profile rally at the Democratic National Convention this August in Denver, Colorado.

The following list outlines all of AFM’s achievements since its beginning in 1999. It represents the meaning of “we the people” overcoming the challenges against marriage, family, traditional morality, and human decency.

December, 1999	Alliance for Marriage incorporated.
1999 to 2001	Alliance for Marriage conducts media relations and public education on behalf of our multi-issue agenda to support mission of more kids raised in a home with both mother and father.
November 7, 2000	Nebraska voters pass a Constitutional Amendment protecting marriage.
July, 2001	Alliance for Marriage Announces Text of Marriage Protection Amendment.
May 15, 2002	Alliance for Marriage amendment first introduced in 107th Congress in the House of Representatives by Democrat Representative Ronnie Shows (D-MS). Gathers 22 cosponsors.
November 5, 2002	Nevada voters pass a Constitutional Amendment protecting marriage.
May 21, 2003	Alliance for Marriage amendment reintroduced in 108th Congress in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Gathers 131 cosponsors in House and 10 in Senate.
February 4, 2004	Massachusetts Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage
September 9, 2003	United States Conference of Catholic Bishops endorses Alliance for Marriage Amendment.
February 12, 2004	The City of San Francisco issues marriage licenses to homosexual couples and performs the first known marriage of a homosexual couple in the U.S.
February 24, 2004	President George W. Bush endorses Alliance for Marriage amendment and calls on Congress to pass it.
July 12, 2004	Congress for Racial Equality endorses Alliance for Marriage Amendment.
September 28, 2004	National Christian Hispanic Leadership Conference endorses Alliance for Marriage Amendment.
September 30, 2004	Alliance for Marriage amendment voted on in House of Representatives. Gets a majority 227 votes, but falls short of two-thirds necessary for approval of amendment.
Fall, 2004	Voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah pass Constitutional Amendments protecting marriage.
April 5, 2005	Kansas voters pass a Constitutional Amendment protecting marriage.
November 8, 2005	Texas voters pass a Constitutional Amendment protecting marriage.
July 18, 2006	Alliance for Marriage amendment voted on in House of Representatives. Gets a majority 236 votes, but falls short of two-thirds necessary for approval of amendment.
June 6, 2006	Alabama voters pass a Constitutional Amendment protecting marriage.
June 7, 2006	Alliance for Marriage amendment voted on in Senate. A plurality of Senators vote to debate and pass legislation, but 60 votes are required to end a minority filibuster.
November, 2006	Wisconsin voters, led by Bishop Robert C. Morlino, pass a Constitutional Amendment protecting marriage, bringing to 27 the number of states which have taken such action.
January, 2007	Alliance for Marriage Foundation launches Marriage Protection Caucus and begins organizing in state legislatures. To date, 23 states now have active marriage protection chapters.
September, 2007	Alliance for Marriage Foundation launches Californians For Marriage, backed by leaders like Rev. Samuel Rodriguez and Dr. David P. Espinoza, Senior Pastor at La Trinidad Church in San Fernando. The movement focuses heavily on California’s heavy Hispanic population.
February 12, 2008	Alliance for Marriage Foundation and key Latino leaders from across the country announce major effort to organize Hispanic voters to rally at the Democratic National Convention in Denver to press candidates to stand up for marriage.

Consumer Genetic Tests Increasing Sex-Selective Abortions

A February Los Angeles Times article reported an increasing number of North American women are using inexpensive genetic test to determine the sex of their preborn babies. As has happened in other parts of the world, these tests may result in more abortions, according to LifeSite reporter Hilary White.

The LA Times article also reported over a hundred women have launched lawsuits against one Massachusetts company, Acu-Gen, because of wrong results. This gives further proof that these cheap genetic tests are unreliable and dangerous.

In a 2006 LiteSite article, Gudrun Schultz reports that UN statistics shows India is the country that has arguably the largest problem with sex-selection abortion, as many as 7000 girls are killed by abortion every day. A UN report issued the same year stated, “Since 1991, statistics reveal drastic declines in the number of girl children in the most prosperous states and districts – as much as 50-100 fewer girls per 1,000 boys than elsewhere.”

White‘s report also included parts of William Saletan’s commentary on the LA Times article. Saletan points out a shift in emphasis indicated by the LA Times article: “The very idea of elective prenatal sex-testing used to be controversial, especially in light of rampant sex-selective abortion in Asia. Now these tests are being bought, used and reported just like any other prenatal test.” As White observes, “the increasing social acceptability of the practice is indicated by the fact that the couples and women interviewed did not hesitate to allow their names to be used, although none of those quoted actually aborted.”

Will America become another China where families are allowed only two children and where one sex is given preferential selection? The problem with population control both east and west is the continuance of human society requires on average more than two children per family.

The whole idea sex selection reminds me of Hilter’s attempt to create the ideal Aryan society. It ended in mass murder just as sex selection portends to continue the mass murder of unborn children. Hitler’s agenda was for politics, power, and glory. Consumer genetic testing and abortion on demand is a utopia of secular power, greed, and profits.

Obama: Terri Schiavo should have been a horse

During the February 26 Ohio Democrat presidential debate, Barack Obama for the 2nd time said his biggest legislative regret thus far was voting to try to stop Terri Schindler Schiavo’s husband from starving and dehydrating her to death.

Jill Stanek made an astute observation about Obama view about human life. He co-sponsored a bill to end the slaughter of horses, supported law caracking down on dog fighting, and he sponsored a bill to prevent the death penalty of a convicted murderer, but he regrets having voted against the efforts of euthanaisantist choice to kill—she was denied the right to life, or the choice to die, or even the possibility of either choice.

Reality Check: Obama gives the impression that was a professor of Constitutional law for 10 years. According to a National Right to Life editorial, “Obama was not a ‘constitutional law professor’ at the University of Chicago. Nor was he a full-time faculty member or tenured. He was a part-time ‘senior lecturer.’” That is comparable to my English curriculum instructor in graduate school who just happened to be public school teacher of English.

More Women Work Through Pregnancy, Return to Job Sooner

by Jennifer Mesko, managing editor of CitizenLink

Women are more likely to work during pregnancy than they were 30 to 40 years ago. They also are returning to work more rapidly after having their first child — 64 percent are back at work within a year, compared with 17 percent four decades ago.

Two-thirds of women who had their first child between 2001 and 2003 worked during their pregnancy, compared with 44 percent between 1961 and 1965, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

“What is interesting is the focus on what women are doing relative to pregnancy, childbirth and work,” said Glenn Stanton, director of global family formation studies at Focus on the Family. “But what is missing is how they feel about this.

“Women wish they didn’t need to work as much. They feel the need to work longer in pregnancy and sooner after childbirth because of needing to continue contributing to the household income. Many of them are the primary breadwinner in the home.”

Diane Freeman, a mother of two and the marketing director for a San Francisco law firm, worked through her pregnancies and returned to work just months after giving birth.

“I do wish I didn’t have to work as much, and I wish I could’ve had a longer maternity leave,” she told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Stanton said women are incredibly torn in leaving their newborn babies in someone else’s care.
“One of nature’s strongest and most enduring bonds is between a new mother and her baby,” he said. “We see the baby cry as mom leaves the baby at day care, but only a mother knows her own torment in this hand-off. A mother’s heart is for her baby in every conceivable way, and the fact that work is increasingly dividing this, works against the desires of both mother and child.”

For More Information
Focus on the Family offers resources to stay-at-home moms and working moms.