Some states include the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link in Informed Consent Laws:
In 1995, Louisiana enacted a law protecting a woman’s right to know about abortion and fetal development. It became the FIRST STATE IN THE NATION to include information on the abortion breast cancer connection in its information booklet given to pregnant mothers considering abortion.
Montana enacted a law in 1995 to expressly require that abortionists inform women of the relationship between abortion and breast cancer.
In 2003, Texas enacted legislation to require abortion providers to provide informed consent to women seeking abortion. The law went into effect Jan.1, 2004.The information booklet, "A Woman’s Right to Know", published by the Texas Department of Health states: "Your chances of getting breast cancer are affected by your pregnancy history. If you have carried a pregnancy to term as a young woman, you may be less likely to get breast cancer in the future. However you do not get the same protective effect if your pregnancy is ended by an abortion."
The 43 million abortions since 1973 were not without effect. Forty-three million people who were supposed to be a part of American society, and would have been between the ages of newborn and 32 by now are no longer alive. So are some of their mothers. A few lost their lives due to immediate complications of their abortions. Some lost their lives to breast cancer years later. Five percent of breast cancers can be attributed to a woman’s abortion. Estimated new breast cancer patients in the U.S. in 2004 is 215,900 for women. This means about 10,795 cases of breast cancer a year could have been avoided. Women deserve to know the truth about the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link. For further information contact www.bcpinstitute.org
For pro-life leaders: Did you know that Public Service Announcements for radio are available on the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link? Contact www.bcpinstitute.org/resources.htm These ads can be run on college radio, Christian radio or your local radio stations.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Monday, October 24, 2005
Umbert Creator Gary Cangemi Addresses Boston Respect Life Walk
Boston, MA
Umbert the Unborn received a warm and enthusiastic response on the Boston Common on Sunday, October 2, when pro-life cartoonist Gary Cangemi addressed the crowd at the Respect Life Walk to Aid Mothers and Children, sponsored by Massachusetts Citizens for Life. Dedicating his talk to the memory of his father, John Cangemi, who was born and raised in South Boston, Gary told participants how he came up with the idea for Umbert. He then read a special "inutero message" from Umbert to the participants who responded with laughter, approval, and applause as Umbert’s popular one-liners were shared with young and old alike. Gary ended his presentation by passing out special signs featuring Umbert’s picture and pro-life slogans to children to carry on the pro-life walk that followed. Cangemi was given the honor of leading the procession through the streets of Boston. Also present at the event were the Boston Archbishop Sean O’Malley and former Mayor Raymond L. Flynn. To see a picture of the Life Walk visit www.rcab.org/Pilot/2005/ps051007/respectlifewalk.html
Umbert the Unborn received a warm and enthusiastic response on the Boston Common on Sunday, October 2, when pro-life cartoonist Gary Cangemi addressed the crowd at the Respect Life Walk to Aid Mothers and Children, sponsored by Massachusetts Citizens for Life. Dedicating his talk to the memory of his father, John Cangemi, who was born and raised in South Boston, Gary told participants how he came up with the idea for Umbert. He then read a special "inutero message" from Umbert to the participants who responded with laughter, approval, and applause as Umbert’s popular one-liners were shared with young and old alike. Gary ended his presentation by passing out special signs featuring Umbert’s picture and pro-life slogans to children to carry on the pro-life walk that followed. Cangemi was given the honor of leading the procession through the streets of Boston. Also present at the event were the Boston Archbishop Sean O’Malley and former Mayor Raymond L. Flynn. To see a picture of the Life Walk visit www.rcab.org/Pilot/2005/ps051007/respectlifewalk.html
Friday, October 21, 2005
George Will on Harriet Miers
Washington – Senators being what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption—perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting – should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due….. To read George Will’s column visit
www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/georgewill/2005/10/04/159414.html
www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/georgewill/2005/10/04/159414.html
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Abortion-Breast Cancer Link Special on TV in NEPA
If you live in North East PA, you will be able to watch a TV special on the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link on Friday evening October 21 at 1:30 am and Monday afternoon October 24 at 2:30 pm. Britta Stream, Miss Oregon of the 2002 Miss America pageant introduces three young women whose lives were forever changed after they developed breast cancer following their abortions. The ABC Link presents their stories along with convincing scientific evidence presented by two world experts on the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link, Dr. Joel Brind, PhD, Professor of Human Biology and Endocrinology, and Dr. Angela Lanfranchi MD, FACS, Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. This special will be shown on WSWB TV 38 and will empower women to make informed choices for themselves and their children. Women who are at increased risk for breast cancer after an abortion will learn about life saving screening mammograms which can increase survival if breast cancer should develop.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk speaker at Wilkes-Barre Banquet
Don't miss this opportunity!
Respect Life Banquet
Pennsylvanians For Human Life
Genetti’s Best Western and Conference Center
77 E. Market St., Wilkes-Barre, PA.
Friday, November 11th , 2005 At 6 PM
Guest Speaker Will Be:
Reverend Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D.,
A Priest of the Diocese of Fall River, Mass.,
Author and Director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, Phila.
Topic: The latest developments in Bioethics, Stem cells and Cloning
Mail Reservations ($18.00) To:
PHL
201 S. Main Street,
Wilkes-Barre, Pa. 18701
(Deadline, November 4th )
Respect Life Banquet
Pennsylvanians For Human Life
Genetti’s Best Western and Conference Center
77 E. Market St., Wilkes-Barre, PA.
Friday, November 11th , 2005 At 6 PM
Guest Speaker Will Be:
Reverend Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D.,
A Priest of the Diocese of Fall River, Mass.,
Author and Director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center, Phila.
Topic: The latest developments in Bioethics, Stem cells and Cloning
Mail Reservations ($18.00) To:
PHL
201 S. Main Street,
Wilkes-Barre, Pa. 18701
(Deadline, November 4th )
Sunday, October 09, 2005
How Will Roberts Rule? by Gary Cangemi
The recent Judiciary Committee hearings on the appointment of Judge John Roberts to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court left little doubt how desperate pro-abortion politicians are to hold on to their precious abortion rights. The usual suspects were there, grilling Roberts like a rib-eye steak; Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Diane Feinstein, and Chuck Schumer all praising Roberts for his brilliant legal mind, while pistol-whipping him to elicit the slightest betrayal of his position on abortion. With Darrowesque deftness, he rebuffed each attempt, refusing to reveal how he would rule on a case pending before the court. Even Arlen Specter, who just the day before promised he would not ask how Roberts would vote on Roe V. Wade, jumped out of the starting gate with question after question aimed at determining how Roberts would vote on Roe V. Wade.
Reading between the lines of Roberts’ skillful answers, several things were clear. First, Roberts is very conscious about not wanting to appear to be an ideologue. He stated clearly that he would not bring his personal opinions, only his legal opinions to the bench. That, of course, did not satisfy the Bidens and Kennedys, who wanted an ironclad guarantee that he would bring THEIR opinions to the bench.
Second, Roberts indicated that he would respect precedent, but that precedent was a starting point in reviewing cases before the court. His responses made it clear that precedent was no sacred cow and that there were factors which could erode or change the circumstances determining how precedent is applied. Roberts, in essence, was leaving the barn door open for future challenges to Roe V. Wade. But the burden will clearly be on the challengers.
Third, Roberts is a dedicated servant of the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. He has no political agenda. He left no doubt that he would strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench. The only question that remains is how he will apply these to any future cases on abortion and other life issues. The answer is, we don’t know. Our opinion is that the right to life is fundamental and foundational to our Constitution. If John Roberts is a true strict constructionist, he will uphold that opinion in his rulings. Time will tell.
from The Pro-Life Reporter, Fall 2005
Visit www.catholic.net and click on the Culture of Life page to see Umbert the Unborn by Gary Cangemi or for more information, visit www.umberttheunborn.com
Reading between the lines of Roberts’ skillful answers, several things were clear. First, Roberts is very conscious about not wanting to appear to be an ideologue. He stated clearly that he would not bring his personal opinions, only his legal opinions to the bench. That, of course, did not satisfy the Bidens and Kennedys, who wanted an ironclad guarantee that he would bring THEIR opinions to the bench.
Second, Roberts indicated that he would respect precedent, but that precedent was a starting point in reviewing cases before the court. His responses made it clear that precedent was no sacred cow and that there were factors which could erode or change the circumstances determining how precedent is applied. Roberts, in essence, was leaving the barn door open for future challenges to Roe V. Wade. But the burden will clearly be on the challengers.
Third, Roberts is a dedicated servant of the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. He has no political agenda. He left no doubt that he would strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench. The only question that remains is how he will apply these to any future cases on abortion and other life issues. The answer is, we don’t know. Our opinion is that the right to life is fundamental and foundational to our Constitution. If John Roberts is a true strict constructionist, he will uphold that opinion in his rulings. Time will tell.
from The Pro-Life Reporter, Fall 2005
Visit www.catholic.net and click on the Culture of Life page to see Umbert the Unborn by Gary Cangemi or for more information, visit www.umberttheunborn.com
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Does Pro-Abortion Reaction to Roberts Spell Trouble for Future Nominee?
On Thursday, September 29 at 3:00 p.m., John Roberts was sworn in as the 17th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The vote was 77 votes to Confirm with 22 votes opposed.. "No" votes included Sen. Hillary Clinton who, of late has been attepting to portray herself as a "moderate", and a cast of the usual liberal characters: Kennedy, Kerry, Biden, Inouye, Harkin, Feinstein, Mikulski and Obama.
Senate Judiciary hearings opened Sept.12 and concluded Sept.22 when the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13 to 5 to approve John Roberts. Roberts’ testimony made it clear he will strictly interpret the Constitution, but his opinions on abortion were not expressed.
With two abortion cases coming before the Supreme Court this term, predictably both sides in the abortion controversy want a Supreme Court Justice who reflects their views.
Roberts was nominated in July, after Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement from the court. Abortion advocates hailed her as a "moderate" suggesting her replacement should share her views. O’Connor voted for abortion. Sen.Arlen Specter suggested O’Connor might remain on the court if she was offered the position of Chief Justice.
The ailing Chief Justice, William Rehnquist, who was one of the two Justices who opposed legalizing abortion in Roe. v. Wade, was determined to remain on the court but on September 3, Rehnquist passed away. Bush then nominated Roberts for Chief Justice.
Pro-Abortion Attack Ads
In the weeks that lead up to the hearings, Roberts had to endure grossly unfair attacks on his character by pro-abortion organizations like The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Roberts once argued a case before the Supreme Court for George H.W. Bush’s administration to support the rights of people to protest at abortion clinics. NARAL responded to the Roberts nomination with a sensationalized ad which attempted to paint Roberts as an extremist who supported abortion clinic bombers. FactCheck.org found otherwise and wrote, "The images used in the ad are especially misleading. The pictures are of a clinic bombing that happened nearly seven years after Roberts signed the legal brief in question." The ad backfired. It was so outrageously unfair that NARAL had to pull it.The director responsible for the ad resigned.
If the pro-abortion crowd has made this much of a stink over a nominee as qualified as Roberts,
(The Senate unanimously confirmed Judge Roberts once before, Roberts received the highest rating from the American Bar Association and graduated at the top of his class from Harvard Law School, etc.) imagine the ruckus they'll raise over the next nominee.
Senate Judiciary hearings opened Sept.12 and concluded Sept.22 when the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13 to 5 to approve John Roberts. Roberts’ testimony made it clear he will strictly interpret the Constitution, but his opinions on abortion were not expressed.
With two abortion cases coming before the Supreme Court this term, predictably both sides in the abortion controversy want a Supreme Court Justice who reflects their views.
Roberts was nominated in July, after Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement from the court. Abortion advocates hailed her as a "moderate" suggesting her replacement should share her views. O’Connor voted for abortion. Sen.Arlen Specter suggested O’Connor might remain on the court if she was offered the position of Chief Justice.
The ailing Chief Justice, William Rehnquist, who was one of the two Justices who opposed legalizing abortion in Roe. v. Wade, was determined to remain on the court but on September 3, Rehnquist passed away. Bush then nominated Roberts for Chief Justice.
Pro-Abortion Attack Ads
In the weeks that lead up to the hearings, Roberts had to endure grossly unfair attacks on his character by pro-abortion organizations like The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Roberts once argued a case before the Supreme Court for George H.W. Bush’s administration to support the rights of people to protest at abortion clinics. NARAL responded to the Roberts nomination with a sensationalized ad which attempted to paint Roberts as an extremist who supported abortion clinic bombers. FactCheck.org found otherwise and wrote, "The images used in the ad are especially misleading. The pictures are of a clinic bombing that happened nearly seven years after Roberts signed the legal brief in question." The ad backfired. It was so outrageously unfair that NARAL had to pull it.The director responsible for the ad resigned.
If the pro-abortion crowd has made this much of a stink over a nominee as qualified as Roberts,
(The Senate unanimously confirmed Judge Roberts once before, Roberts received the highest rating from the American Bar Association and graduated at the top of his class from Harvard Law School, etc.) imagine the ruckus they'll raise over the next nominee.
Monday, October 03, 2005
Not What You'd Expect From The Girl Scouts
The 50th annual convention of the Girl Scouts which will be held in Atlanta from October 7-10 features three keynote speakers. One is Ann Curry from NBC’s Today Show, but the choice of the other two are evidence of the National Organization’s plunge into radical feminism. Dr. Johnetta Cole will address the Girl Scout Convention. Cole’s radical views forced the Clinton administration to withdraw her name from consideration for Education Secretary.
The other radical convention speaker is Kavits Ramadas, predsident and CEO of the Global Fund for Women, which promotes abortion and feminism, among other things. Here is a quote from Ramadas from a newsletter published on her group’s Web site in 2003. "As women in the United States celebrate the 30th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, (a landmark case that gave women in the U.S. the right to decide when and if to bear children), we are proud to bring you this issue of Raising Our Voices, highlighting ongoing efforts to protect women’s reproductive health and (abortion) rights.’
On the local level, the Girl Scouts conduct many worthwhile activities and involve many families that hold traditional values. Parents need to know there is a difference in the values reflected on the national & local level. The national organization leadership tends toward radical feminism.
From Concerned Women From America Newsletter
The other radical convention speaker is Kavits Ramadas, predsident and CEO of the Global Fund for Women, which promotes abortion and feminism, among other things. Here is a quote from Ramadas from a newsletter published on her group’s Web site in 2003. "As women in the United States celebrate the 30th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, (a landmark case that gave women in the U.S. the right to decide when and if to bear children), we are proud to bring you this issue of Raising Our Voices, highlighting ongoing efforts to protect women’s reproductive health and (abortion) rights.’
On the local level, the Girl Scouts conduct many worthwhile activities and involve many families that hold traditional values. Parents need to know there is a difference in the values reflected on the national & local level. The national organization leadership tends toward radical feminism.
From Concerned Women From America Newsletter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)