House Democrats to Unveil Final Version of Pro-Abortion Health Care Reform Bill Today
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- House Democrats unveiled their final version of the pro-abortion health care reform bill on Thursday that pro-life groups are opposing because contains massive abortion funding and subsidies with taxpayer funds. The legislation combines three pro-abortion versions of the same bill and has been renumbered as H.R. 3962. Democrats hope to bring the measure to the House floor for a debate and vote next week, although it appears that will be done without allowing pro-life Democrats and Republicans to vote on an amendment from Rep. Bart Stupak that would disallow abortion funding. The bill includes the so-called government option or public option that expands abortion funding even further than do the subsidies that can be used to purchase health care insurance that pays for abortions. While pro-abortion House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is introducing an abortion-funding plan in the House with the government option, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has received most of the attention this week for saying he will go against the prevailing political winds in the Senate and introduced a pro-abortion bill with the government option as well. Several moderate Democrats are likely to join Republicans in voting against the Senate bill if it includes the government-run option. For Pelosi, an initial survey of House Democrats her top lieutenants conducted reveals she is about 17 votes shy of the 218 she needs to get approval for a pro-abortion bill with the public plan.

Pro-Life Group Confirms New House Health Care Reform Bill Includes Abortion Funding
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The new House health care bill unveiled today by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is no different than the three previous versions of the legislation that all forced taxpayers to fund abortions. Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, told LifeNews.com today that "A vote for this bill is a vote to establish a federal government program that will directly fund abortion on demand, with federal funds." Johnson referred specifically to language on page 110 of the new bill (H.R. 3962) which explicitly authorizes the "public health insurance option" to pay for all elective abortions. The "public health insurance option" or "public plan" would be a health insurance program operated directly by the federal government, through the Department of Health and Human Services. "The public plan will be a federal agency program, and all funds spent by the agency are federal funds," Johnson said. "The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), in an October 9 memo obtained by NRLC, confirmed that all funds spent by the bill's public plan will be federal funds. Prominent Democrats who have claimed that the federal government could pay for abortion with 'private' funds have been engaged in a big snow job -- and in swallowing such a contrived, implausible claim, many journalists have been all too gullible." To stop the abortion funding, pro-life Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan has proposed an amendment that would prohibit the federal government plan from paying for abortion but Pelosi will likely force the House to vote on the bill under a closed rule that prohibits amendments. NRLC and other pro-life groups are urging House members to vote against imposition of the closed rule preventing the pro-life amendment and that vote could come on the House floor as soon as November 5 or 6. "Anyone voting to forbid amendments to this bill is in effect voting to set up a federal government program that will directly fund abortion on demand, with federal funds," Johnson said. The bill also has a second objectionable provision relating to abortion -- it would allow federal subsidies to help pay for the cost of private health plans that cover elective abortion, a departure from longstanding federal policy. Stupak's amendment would correct this problem, as well.

Pro-Life Group Slams Pelosi for Crafting Pro-Abortion Health Care Bill Behind Closed Doors
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The Family Research Council is upset that the new pro-abortion health care "reform" bill House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled today was negotiated behind closed doors. FRC president Tony Perkins emailed LifeNews.com the following: "Unfortunately, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi waited until this morning to let Americans in on her secret overhaul of the system. After long weeks of keeping voters -- and members -- in the dark, Pelosi's version of reform is finally public. From what we can tell, her plan retained little of what was hashed out in committee. Instead of relying on collaboration, the bill is solely a Pelosi product that makes a mockery of the committee process." Although she claims the legislation isn't a "robust public option," FRC says the government-run health care system is definitely a part of the legislative measure. "What she proposes would lead to a government takeover of health care and steamroll private plans in the process. Any cost-conscious Members will still be troubled by the price of reform. Depending on whom you ask, Pelosi's plan is slated to cost anywhere from $900 billion to more than $1 trillion in 10 years," he notes. FRC's greatest concern is that the new bill, HR 3962, still includes government-funded abortion over the loud protests of pro-life groups, members of Congress and the public. It does. "But there's an easy solution for Pelosi: exclude abortion funding from the final bill," Perkins said. "According to a new poll, plenty of Americans would support her in that decision. The idea of taxpayer-funded abortion is hugely unpopular among a large sample of U.S. women. WomenTrend, a division of the polling company, just released new numbers from a sweeping survey and found that 67% of women regardless of age, race, region, and marital and parental status don't believe the government should pay for abortion. Even in Pelosi's own party, a majority (55%) of Democratic women are unwilling to subsidize abortions. This issue is a non-partisan no-brainer."

Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Seeking to Overturn Obama Embryonic Stem Cell Research Order
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A federal judge has dismissed the case filed by a collection of pro-life groups and an adoption agency that involves the adopts of unborn children frozen at fertility clinics. They had sued the administration of President Barack Obama saying that he should not have issued an executive order forcing taxpayers to finance embryonic stem cell research that involves the destruction of human life. They based their lawsuit on the Dickey-Wicker amendment, a federal law that disallows funding of research on human embryos that involves their specific creation and destruction. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth put the brakes on the lawsuit, which also said Obama's order, and a second one stopping funding of embryonic stem cell research alternatives, makes less money available for adult stem cell research and fewer human embryos available for adoption. Judge Lamberth dismissed the case for now and the collection of pro-life groups and Nightlight Christian Adoption Agency could still appeal. “Embryos lack standing because they are not persons under the law” and the unborn have no right to life protected under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, Lamberth said, citing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. For Nightlight to have grounds to sue, Lamberth ruled, potential embryo donors have to choose to donate their embryos for research and not for adoption. He also called the question of embryos available for adoption speculative. "With these rules, the Obama administration and National Institutes for Health are rushing to pour more taxpayer dollars into a technique that provides incentives for destroying embryos. Unlike the previous administration, President Obama is emphasizing the poorest science and ignoring real hope for patients," Family Research Council president Tony Perkins said in response. "While he may not recognize the groundbreaking progress of adult stem cells, scientists do. In this political climate, many are working even harder to deliver on the potential of this ethical and effective technique. Despite this disappointment, it's important to remember that the adult stem cell research is speeding ahead, treating real patients who are alive and healthy because of it."

Gallup: Decline in Support for Abortion Helps Increase Number Who Say They're Conservative
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A decline in the number of Americans who say they are supportive of legalized abortion has made it so the number of people who self-identify as conservatives is on the rise. Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group. The 2009 data are based on 16 separate Gallup surveys conducted from January through September, encompassing more than 5,000 national adults per quarter. Conservatives have been the dominant ideological group each quarter, with between 39% and 41% of Americans identifying themselves as either "very conservative" or "conservative." Between 35% and 37% of Americans call themselves "moderate," while the percentage calling themselves "very liberal" or "liberal" has consistently registered between 20% and 21% -- making liberals the smallest of the three groups. Changes among political independents appear to be the main reason the percentage of conservatives has increased nationally over the past year: the 35% of independents describing their views as conservative in 2009 is up from 29% in 2008. By contrast, among Republicans and Democrats, the percentage who are "conservative" has increased by one point each. As is typical in recent years, Republicans are far more unified in their political outlook than are either independents or Democrats. While 72% of Republicans in 2009 call their views conservative, independents are closely split between the moderate and conservative labels (43% and 35%, respectively). Democrats are about evenly divided between moderates (39%) and liberals (37%). Gallup noted abortion's impact on the results: In addition to the increase in conservatism on this general ideology measure, Gallup finds higher percentages of Americans expressing conservative views on abortion in 2009 than in 2008.

Man Who Shot Pro-Life Advocate James Pouillon Now Declared Mentally Competent For Trial
Owosso, MI (LifeNews.com) -- The man who allegedly shot and killed pro-life advocate James Pouillon and a local businessman has now been declared mentally competent to stand trial. Local resident Harlan Drake stands accused of shooting Pouillon as he protested abortion outside a high school and he had been declared mentally incompetent to stand trial last month. Now, a judge this week has accepted the latest report saying his mental health has improved after getting treatment. Drake's competency means he understands the charges and can assist his defense. His lawyer, Robert Ashley, still might pursue an insanity defense if the case goes to trial. Ashley is seeking approval for a separate evaluation of Drake's mental health at the time of the shootings of Pouillon and Mike Fuoss. District Court Judge Terrance P. Dignan signed an order last month remanding the 33-year-old to the State Department of Mental Health for treatment, though Judge Dignan said there was a good possibility that treatment would make it so Drake will attain competence enough to be tried for the September 11 shootings. He said Drake's suicide attempt two days after the shooting was a factor along with a 2004 crash Drake was involved in that resulted in the death of two teenagers which saw them fail to yield to his truck. Drake was scheduled to receive receive treatment at the Center for Forensic Psychiatry for a maximum of 15 months, and the first trial on the charges had been postponed until then. Shiawassee County Chief Assistant Prosecutor Sara Edwards indicated the case will move forward as soon as Drake is ready to stand trial and explained that the mental facility is a secure facility.

New Polls in New Jersey Show Pro-Life Governor Candidate Christie Doing Better
Trenton, NJ (LifeNews.com) -- Two new polls from New Jersey show gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie, who has the backing of pro-life groups and advocates, faring better against pro-abortion Gov. Jon Corzine and a pro-abortion independent candidate. The latest Rasmussen survey shows Christie taking the lead over Corzine, 42 to 38 percent, with Independent Chris Daggett winning 14 percent of the vote. Last week, Corzine held a one-point lead over Christie, 37 to 36 percent in the initial ballot test. When soft Daggett supporters were pushed to support either Corzine or Christie, Christie maintained a 46 to 43 percent lead, with Daggett at seven percent. A separate poll from the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling finds that late-deciding voters are lining up behind Christie. The poll shows Christie leading Corzine by four points, 42 to 38 percent with Daggett at 13 percent. Christie only led by one point over Corzine in the last PPP survey two weeks ago. Interestingly, the PPP poll shows that Daggett voters are more likely to support Corzine as a second choice by a 10-point margin, 42 to 32 percent. “This race is going right down to the wire,” said PPP pollster Dean. “The Daggett voters seem to be pretty volatile so if they go back to the Corzine camp he’ll have a good shot of pulling it out." Pollster Scott Rasmussen e-mails: "All our poll results, for all elections after Labor Day, are reported including leaners. So, we consider the 46-43 numbers our official results for NJ." Corzine has promoted abortion and embryonic stem cell research that destroys unborn children and has yet to help any patients.

Baltimore City Council Debates Fining Pregnancy Centers for Not Doing Abortions
Baltimore, MD (LifeNews.com) -- The Baltimore City Council on Tuesday debated a proposal that would target pregnancy centers by making them post a sign saying they do not offer abortions or provide contraception. The measure does not contain any stipulations for abortion centers requiring a disclosure indicating they do not provide comprehensive abortion alternatives. City Council Bill 09-0406 would fine pregnancy centers $500 per day if they do not comply with the city ordinance. Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and 10 members of the council are sponsoring a measure that pro-life advocates say is at the behest of Planned Parenthood and NARAL and is in the council's judiciary committee. "This bill is not about the abortion debate. This bill is about truth in advertising," she said. Bishop Denis J. Madden, who spoke on behalf of the Archbishop of Baltimore, opposed the bill. "This bill would raise widespread and unnecessary controversy for the City Council and be a distraction for those important issues like high crime rates, supporting schools and budget woes," he said. “The proposal serves no useful purpose. It harasses pregnancy resource centers.” Jay Schwartz of the Maryland Catholic Conference added: "You've gone too far. Unlike the state bill of a couple years ago, your OB/GYN offices would have to post a sign, and given the definition in the bill, a maternity shop would have to post a sign." Rawlings-Blake said she will support amendments to lower the proposed $500 fine and to change the penalties from criminal to civil ones. According to the Catholic Review, Councilman Robert Curran asked representatives several times if abortion businesses would be required to post signs listing what services they will not give to pregnant women. Carol Clews, executive director of the Center for Pregnancy Concerns, said the bill "is impugning our integrity.

Britain House of Lords Sees Amendment to Okay Suicide Tourism Withdrawn
London, England (LifeNews.com) -- Members of the British House of Lords were expected to vote again on an amendment that would promote assisted suicide, but it was withdrawn. The expected vote would have come after after the July defeat of another amendment that would have made it easier for Britons to engage in assisted suicide. Following the defeat in the summer of Lord Falconer's attempt to widen the law on assisted suicide to allow so-called suicide tourism, Lord Alderdice re-tabled his amendment to the Coroners and Justice bill. SPUC, the British pro-life group, informed LifeNws.com that the amendment was opposed by a majority of those Lords who spoke in the debate and was withdrawn. Anthony Ozimic of SPUC Pro-Life said: "The idea of allowing assisted suicide was condemned tonight as discriminatory, highly dangerous and threatening. Lords were offended by Lord Alderdice's suggestion that coroners should decide who may live or die under his amendment. His amendment was described as 'dismal', a 'travesty' and surrounded by 'weasal words'. We congratulate those Lords who so firmly opposed the amendment, and the many members of the public who lobbied Lords prior to tonight's debate. The director of public prosecutions should read tonight's debate closely as he drafts his policy on prosecuting assisted suicide." After a passionate debate, the Lords defeated the Falconer amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill by a 194 to 141 vote. Like the Falconer amendment, the new measure would say that "no offence shall have been committed if assistance is given to a person to commit suicide" and sets for provisions for when assisted suicides can be carried out. Both amendments would repeal the already-raddled law that prevents suicide tourism. That is the practice where residents of Britain travel to other nations, typically Switzerland, where Dignitas euthanasia centers are located, to kill themselves. The current law in England prohibits suicide tourism and calls for as long as 14 years in prison for aiding a suicide, although the law is almost never enforced. Some figures show as many as 115 people have gone to other nations to help kill loved ones without facing any prosecution.

Texas Catholic Bishops Issue Statement Opposing Pro-Abortion Health Care Legislation
Houston, TX (LifeNews.com) -- Every Catholic bishop in Texas has joined together to release a joint statement warning that the current health care bills pending in Congress do not adequately protect against forcing taxpayers to finance abortions. The statement from the Texas Catholic Conference, representing all 15 diocesan offices statewide, says the bishops “hope that our national leaders will work together to bring about genuine life-affirming reform to our nation’s health care system.” They continue, saying, “Our Catholic moral tradition teaches that every human being, from the moment of conception to natural death, has an innate dignity that entitles him or her to certain rights and protections, including the fundamental right to life and the right to affordable healthcare, which flows from the right to life." The bishops said the Capps amendment, a phony amendment that does not actually stop abortion funding, “does not adequately ensure the protection of all human life.” As is the case with the nation's bishops' agency, the USCCB, they warn that they will have to oppose the health care legislation if it is not rendered abortion neutral. “The Catholic Bishops of Texas will continue to support reform of our nation's health care system in ways that respect the lives of all human persons while providing affordable access to health care for all. We will be a committed partner in advancing reform on this life-and-death issue; but if the final form of the legislation does not include acceptable language in these areas then we will have to oppose it vigorously.” Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston and a member of the USCCB Committee for Pro-Life Activities, signed the document.

Wisconsin Pro-Life Advocates Sues Milwaukee for History of Harassment, Denying Free Speech
MIlwaukee, WI (LifeNews.com) -- Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a lawsuit Monday against the city of Milwaukee on behalf of several pro-life advocates to end a long pattern of harassment. For years, numerous pro-life advocates peacefully sharing their messages have been arrested, jailed, cited, harassed, threatened, and even physically assaulted. This has occurred even though they have maintained, out of an abundance of caution, a distance of at least 25 feet from any abortion center because of a 1993 court order issued against unrelated parties. “Pro-life advocates shouldn’t be punished and discriminated against for expressing their beliefs,” said ADF senior legal counsel Mike Johnson. “Treating these peaceful demonstrators as criminals is a crime in itself, not to mention a blatant violation and suppression of their First Amendment rights.” In 1993, a court order against 38 defendants prohibited them from sharing their message within 25 feet of abortion businesses in Milwaukee. Nonetheless, since that time, virtually all other pro-life advocates in the city attempting to peacefully express their views have been victims of harassment and discrimination by local authorities, who often cite inapplicable city ordinances to justify their actions. The lawsuit also alleges that certain local officials have conspired with area abortion centers to deprive pro-life advocates the equal protection and enforcement of the law. Pro-life advocate Tom Pelkey has repeatedly been the victim of excessive force, once while being handcuffed and thrown into city jail for displaying a pro-life sign, even though he held it in a manner compliant with a police officer’s unlawful directive. While holding a pro-life sign on another occasion, Pelkey was pushed over a fire hydrant and injured by a woman who admitted her anger over his sign spurred the attack. Pelkey didn’t address or even see the woman as she was approaching the center, and Planned Parenthood videotape of the incident shows he was distracted by a phone call at the time. Nonetheless, police refused to arrest the assailant. In another incident, in which police did nothing after an Affiliated Medical Clinic employee kicked Pelkey, clinic personnel can be heard on surveillance video saying, “These police officers have become our friends.”

Utah Man Who Attacked Pregnant Girl With Her Consent Gets 20 Years in Prison
Salt Lake City, UT (LifeNews.com) -- A Utah girl who paid a man to hit her in the stomach in an attempt to cause a miscarriage-abortion was declared by a judge to not be guilty of violating any state law. But, the man who did the deed is headed to prison. The case involves 21-year-old Aaron Harrison whom the unnamed 17-year-old girl asked in May to help her cause an abortion to kill her seven-month-old unborn child. The court documents show the girl's boyfriend had threatened to leave her if she did not get an abortion. Harrison, a friend of the girl, reportedly struck and bit her and she paid him $150 to do so. The unborn baby survived the attack and doctors induced labor so the baby could be born. Harrison was sentenced Tuesday to serve up to 20 years in the Utah State Prison. "Your conduct was unconscionable. You just seem to be a rule unto yourself," said 8th District Judge A. Lynn Payne. "I think your conduct shows remarkable disregard for human life; to meet somebody casually and agree to take a life for money." Harrison pleaded guilty to attempted murder, a second-degree felony, and faced a possible sentence of one to 15 years in prison. But Payne said the crime fit better with a new Utah abortion statute for attempted killing of an unborn child, a third-degree felony. The judge sentenced him as if he'd pleaded to that crime and ordered him to serve zero to five years in prison for the beating. The new law, which went into effect in May, allows prosecutors to file such a criminal charge if proper procedures are not followed in a legal or illegal abortion. According to court records, Arron Harrison also slapped and bit the pregnant teen before he was paid $150 by the girl. The pair admitted to their actions not long after the incident was reported. Prosecutor Mark Thomas argued that Arron Harrison should be sentenced on the attempted murder charge. He said the crime did not fit the lesser third-degree felony abortion statute because Arron Harrison is not a physician.

Sign Up for Free Pro-Life News From LifeNews.com