Life Advocacy Briefing

Kagan Moves Out of Committee

THE SENATE’s JUDICIARY COMMITTEE VOTED 13 to 6 Tuesday to advance the nomination of Elena Kagan to the full Senate. The vote was by party line with the exception of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who joined his Democratic colleagues in voting for the “progressive” activist.

The nomination moves into first place as the most critical decision facing the Senate – and the American people. Though polls have consistently shown faint support and significant doubt about the Kagan nomination among the public, Senators measure the intensity of public opposition more by constituent contacts to their offices than by public opinion polls. So the time to act is now – and the message is simple: “Please vote ‘no’ on the Kagan nomination.” Though the reasons to reject this nominee are myriad – including deep concerns among pro-life citizens over the liberal lawyer’s involvement in such matters as strategizing how then-Pres. Bill Clinton (D) could thwart passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act – no reason need be given in calling or writing Senators. A simple “no to Kagan” will do.

The Capitol switchboard is at 1-202/224-3121, and Senators can also be contacted by electronic mail via the Senate website at www.senate.gov.

Permanent Fix

REP. CHRIS SMITH WILL INTRODUCE Thursday a permanent, amplified “Hyde Amendment,” according to a key Capitol Hill source. The legislation, to be called the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” will “establish a consistent, government-wide prohibition on abortion funding.”

The New Jersey Republican is seeking co-sponsors for his legislation; those House Members who enlist before July 29 will be listed as “original co-sponsors,” according to a letter being circulated to colleagues by his office. We publish the text of that letter at the close of this Life Advocacy Briefing. Readers are urged to contact their Representatives and ask them to sign on. Lawmakers may be contacted via the Capitol switchboard at 1-202/224-3121 or via the House’s Internet website at www.house.gov.

“The ‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act’ will reduce the need,” notes the Congressional source, “for numerous separate abortion funding policies and ensure that no program or agency is exempt from this important safeguard.” Details of the provisions are included in the Smith “Dear Colleague” letter.

In effect, the legislation would accomplish what many have assumed the Hyde Amendment has always done – bar federal funding of abortion through all agencies of the federal government. And it would enact the prohibition via permanent statutory law. “Under current law,” notes the source, “funding for abortion and abortion coverage is prohibited through a patchwork of policies, most of which must be annually reapproved in appropriations bills.”

In addition, the proposal coming from Rep. Smith would codify the conscience clause known, after its initial sponsors, as “Hyde-Weldon.”

Docs Ask Senate – Say ‘No’ to Defense Bill Till Abortions Are Nixed

THE LEADERSHIP OF THE CHRISTIAN MEDICAL ASSN. HAVE RELEASED A LETTER to the US Senate urging Senators to vote against the Defense Authorization bill, S-3280, as long as it contains the lethal amendment carried by Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) to force military medical facilities to offer abortions.

We publish that letter near the close of this Life Advocacy Briefing and urge our readers to peruse it for greater understanding of the implications of the Burris Military Abortion Amendment. After contacting Senators to reject the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, we hope readers will call back and send further electronic messages to their Senators to join the Christian physicians group in saying, “Please vote ‘no’ on Defense Authorization unless the ban on military abortions is restored.”

Oh, and by the way, for any who are concerned that holding up S-3280 might jeopardize the troops in the field, here’s a brief reassurance from Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, writing July 22 in his Washington Update: “Holding this bill up until taxpayer-funded abortions, open homosexual service and other issues are scrubbed out will not prevent the troops from getting the resources they need to accomplish their mission. … The Defense Authorization bill is different [from] an appropriations bill, which actually provides the military’s funding. This [policy] legislation directs the military how Congress and the President want the military to spend the money, whereas appropriations bills are the actual funding vehicles.”

Close ’Em Down!

OPERATION RESCUE BAGGED A BIRD last week in Pennsylvania. After the state Dept. of Health (PDH) secretary started hearing from OR’s electronic bulletin readers demanding the department act to shut down four Pennsylvania abortuaries, the department did order two of the mills – in Erie and State College – to stop committing abortions and limit their business to other “services.”

The four shops have been operated by one of the East coast’s most notorious abortionists, Steven Brigham, who had to surrender his medical license in 1992, just six years after graduating from college, but who continues to operate 11 abortuaries in New Jersey (the only state where he is licensed), Maryland, and Virginia. His Pennsylvania shops have gone under the name American Medical Associates. The state is allowing the AMA abortuaries in Allentown and Pittsburgh to stay in the abortion business for now, because Mr. Brigham has transferred ownership to another company, Rose Health Services, a tactic he has used in the past.

The PDH is not the only agency interested in Mr. Brigham’s business. According to a July 21, 2010, Philadelphia Inquirer story, cited by OR, the abortionist “could be forced to close all of his clinics due to an IRS tax lien for failure to pay payroll taxes totaling $234,536 between 2002 and 2006. Requests for collection of the unpaid taxes,” reports OR, “have been ignored.”

“[Mr.] Brigham has been on the wrong side of the law throughout his entire 24-year career,” notes OR. Since surrendering his Pennsylvania license, reports OR, “four other states have barred him from practicing medicine, including New York, California, Florida and Georgia.” What is more, OR reports, “He served 120 days in jail in 1998 for Medicaid fraud.” And a judge in New Jersey, reports OR, “ordered [Mr.] Brigham to stop advertising his abortions as ‘painless’ and ‘safe.’”

But what do his practices have to do with the safety of women? The incident which cost him his New York license, as an example, involved a 20-year-old who suffered an emergency hysterectomy, reports OR, “in what the Health Dept. described as a ‘life-threatening’ incident in which [Mr.] Brigham did not seem to understand the severity of the situation.” Her emergency stemmed from his having “lacerat[ed her] cervix, uterine artery and uterus” and from his having “tak[en] hours to realize it.”

The abortion industry’s trade group, the National Abortion Federation has issued “a statement,” notes OR, “agreeing with the Pennsylvania order to close his clinics. ‘When the NAF won’t have you, you know it’s bad,’” commented OR president Troy Newman in the news release, “‘since the NAF runs some of the nastiest, most dangerous abortion clinics in the country. …

“‘[Mr.] Brigham is just one who has been caught,’” said Mr. Newman. “‘Based on our research into the shoddy practices of the abortion cartel,’” Mr. Newman continued, “‘few of them actually have the proper staffing with the proper credentials. The practice is epidemic and puts the lives of women in grave danger.’”

Planned Parenthood in Trouble, Too

IN CALIFORNIA, a federal appellate court “has reinstated a whistleblower’s lawsuit against Planned Parenthood (PP) affiliates in California,” reports the Catholic News Agency (CNA), “charging that the organizations overbilled the state and federal governments more than $180 million for birth control drugs.”

The reinstatement order came July 1, CNA reports, when “a three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously reversed a lower court’s ruling that the whistleblower did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. … The court remanded the case for further proceedings.” The plaintiff is Victor Gonzalez, former vice president for finance and administration at PP of LosAngeles. He worked for PP for about 16 months till March 2004 and said,” reports CNA, “he was fired for bringing ‘illegal accounting, billing and donations practices’ to the attention of his superiors.”

Commented his attorney in the CNA report, “ ‘Here is the ultimate Hollywood movie set façade of a corporation that poses as charitable while grossly overbilling government programs funded to service the needy, not the greedy.’”

Tactic Backfires

AND THEN THERE’s THE BOTTOM FEEDER in Rockford, Illinois, who has been blaring radio broadcasts on loudspeakers outside his abortuary as just one of the tactics attempting to drive out or drown out pro-life counselors intercepting customers – not a very friendly, inviting atmosphere for distressed mothers contemplating entering the shop, by the way.

LifeSiteNews.com’s Kathleen Gilbert reports the tactic backfired big-time recently when the radio host whose program was being blasted noted that a scheduled guest had cancelled an appearance and opened the phone lines.

“Seeing his chance,” writes Ms. Gilbert, “Rockford pro-life veteran Kevin Rilott whipped out his cellphone and was on air within seconds, loud and clear outside the abortion center where he was standing. [Mr.] Rilott took the opportunity,” she reports, “to explain to [the radio host] and his listeners how the radio station … was being used to silence pro-lifers’ attempt to help mothers in need.”

Responded the talk host, shouting, reports Ms. Gilbert, “‘God bless pro-lifers! God bless pro-lifers! God bless pro-lifers!’ …

“‘The abortion mill nurse who heard this began waving her arms around her head,’” Mr. Rilott told Ms. Gilbert, “‘like she couldn’t believe what was being broadcast over the abortion mill public address system. The look of almost terror and confusion on her face was priceless … .’ The [talk host] then gave [Mr.] Rilott airtime,” writes Ms. Gilbert, “to explain how those who keep vigil outside the Rockford mill come ‘to offer love, help and hope to mothers in need’ and to request prayers for mothers in need and an end to abortion.” Amen.

Letter to U.S. Senators re Burris Abortions

On the letterhead of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations

Dear Senator:

The undersigned physicians who have served soldiers in the US military write to encourage you to resist the partisan efforts to introduce elective abortions into military medicine. Such a drastic and controversial change in longstanding federal policy could disrupt military medicine in a time of war and also undermine military physician retention and recruitment.

We urge you to vote NO on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (S-3280) because it contains Sen. Roland Burris’s amendment to strike Section 1093(b) of Title 10 of the US Code.

Current law in effect since 1996 prohibits the performance of abortion by Department of Defense medical personnel or in DoD medical facilities (except when the life of the mother is at risk or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest). A separate provision prohibits the use of DoD funds for abortion except to save the life of the mother.

This policy has enabled military physicians to practice medicine according to the life-honoring principles expressed in the Hippocratic oath and Judeo-Christian ethics.

In 2006, the House rejected by a vote of 191-237 an amendment similar to the Burris amendment. The Burris amendment, which would allow abortion on both domestic and overseas military bases, is even more expansive than the rejected 2006 amendment.

Many of us remember well that when President Clinton tried to inject abortions into military facilities from 1993 to 1996, virtually all military physicians refused to participate in abortions. Partisan abortion ideology and lobbying have translated into a diminishing of conscience rights which, coupled with inherent pressures in pro-abortion policies such as advocated in the Burris DoD amendment, hold the potential to drastically reduce the number of physicians, thus reducing patient access. A scientific survey of faith-based physicians reveals that 95% will actually leave medicine if pressured to compromise their life-affirming ethical commitments. (For polling details, seewww.freedom2care.org/learn.)

Reducing physicians and patient access during two wars and at a time of a growing and severe national shortage of physicians – especially in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology and family medicine – is hardly wise policy, regardless of one’s views on abortion.

So we urge you to vote NO on the Defense Authorization bill unless Sen. Roland Burris’s amendment to strike Section 1093(b) of Title 10 of the US Code is removed. We also encourage you to protect patient access by taking every opportunity to strengthen conscience protections and the freedom to practice medicine according to longstanding Hippocratic and religious ethics.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Solicitation for Co-Sponsors of Abortion Funding Bar

Text of July 22, 2010, “Dear Colleague” letter from Rep. Chris Smith to fellow US Representatives

Dear Colleague,

For over 30 years, a patchwork of policies has regulated federal funding for abortions. Together these various policies ensure that the American taxpayer is not involved in funding the destruction of innocent human life through abortion on demand.

The soon-to-be-introduced “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” will establish a government-wide statutory prohibition on abortion funding. This comprehensive approach will reduce the need for the numerous separate abortion funding policies and ensure that no program or agency is exempt from this important safeguard.

Most of the existing funding policies are limitation amendments attached to annual appropriations bills (sometimes referred to as riders), which have to be reapproved every year. This “as-needed” approach usually results in a debate over abortion funding any time Congress considers health-related legislation.

This new legislation will make permanent the policies that currently rely on regular re-approval including:

• The Hyde Amendment, which prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage through any program funded through the annual Labor, Health & Human Services Appropriations Act,

• The Helms Amendment, which prohibits funding for abortion as a method of family planning overseas,

• The Smith FEHBP Amendment, which prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage for federal employees,

• The Dornan Amendment, which prohibits use of Congressionally appropriated funds for abortion in the District of Columbia,

• Other policies such as the restrictions on elective abortion funding through Peace Corps and federal prisons.

This bill also codifies the Hyde-Weldon Conscience Clause that is part of the Hyde Amendment. The Conscience Clause ensures that recipients of federal funding do not discriminate against healthcare providers, including doctors, nurses and hospitals, because the providers do not provide, pay for, provide coverage of or refer for abortions.

To be an original co-sponsor of this legislation, please contact my staff … no later than close of business July 29, 2010.

Permission granted to quote with attribution. Reproduction rights granted only by express authorization.