Category archives: Life & Bioethics

Terri Schiavo and the Slippery Slope of Assisted Suicide

by Worth Loving

May 23, 2019


I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” -The Hippocratic Oath

On March 31, 2005, Terri Schiavo died after nearly 14 days without food or water. Over 14 years have passed since her court-ordered death by starvation and dehydration. Even as I write this, Vincent Lambert, dubbed the “French Terri Schiavo,” is facing the same death that she faced unless the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities intervenes. Recently, a so-called “right-to-die” or “death with dignity” bill was passed by the New Jersey legislature and signed by Governor Phil Murphy. In Maryland, a similar bill passed the House of Delegates but failed in the state Senate by one vote. Last month, the Nevada legislature defeated a bill that would have legalized assisted suicide. Amid the renewed debate on such legislation, it’s important to understand the implications of such laws and how the story of Terri Schiavo relates to them.

Terri Schiavo’s Story – Timeline of Events

In the early morning of February 25, 1990, Terri Schiavo collapsed at her home in St. Petersburg, Florida. Although no diagnosis was made, her medical records indicate a deprivation of oxygen to the brain. After being placed on a ventilator for the first few weeks following her collapse, it was soon removed, and she was able to breathe on her own for the rest of her life. The collapse left Terri with limited ability to communicate or move. Due to difficulty swallowing, a feeding tube was inserted to keep her nourished and hydrated.

In June of 1990, Terri’s husband, Michael, was granted healthcare power of attorney status because Terri had not designated a healthcare power of attorney in the event she could not speak for herself. She also began physical therapy at a rehabilitation facility in Florida where she would say words like “No,” “Stop,” and “Mommy.” In July of 1991, Terri’s physical therapy sessions were mysteriously stopped. This was the last documented therapy that Terri ever received.

In 1998, the fight for Terri’s life began. With the help of right-to-die attorney George Felos, Michael Schiavo filed a petition to withdraw life support. Judge George W. Greer heard Michael Schiavo’s petition in January of 2000. In his testimony, Michael Schiavo stated that Terri had told him in the 1980s that she would not want life support. Convinced by the testimony, Judge Greer ordered that Terri’s feeding tube be removed. On February 11, 2000, Terri’s parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, appealed the order to the Second District Court of Appeals, which agreed with Judge Greer’s ruling. Both the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear their case.

On April 21, 2001, Judge Greer’s order was carried out and Terri’s feeding tube was removed. But after over 60 hours without food and water, a judge issued an injunction, allowing the feeding tube to be reinserted. Judge Frank Quesada ordered that Terri’s case be reheard based on new evidence. In October, Judge Greer denied a Motion for Relief from Judgment filed by Terri’s parents based on new evidence and testimony that Terri’s neurological condition had improved. After Terri’s parents appealed the ruling, Judge Greer was forced to hold a medical evidentiary hearing.

In October 2002, Judge Greer held the medical evidentiary trial. Florida law defined a persistent vegetative state as the “total absence of awareness and ability to communicate.” However, Terri did not meet this definition as she was able to, albeit on a very basic level, respond to her surroundings and communicate with her family. Judge Greer ignored this evidence and ordered her feeding tube removed once again, at the mandate of the Second District Court of Appeals.

Terri’s story gained nationwide attention in October 2003 after Judge Greer had ordered her feeding tube to be removed. At least 180,000 people had signed a petition to Governor Jeb Bush, requesting that he invoke Florida’s Adult Protection Custody statutes based on allegations of neglect. Five days later, Governor Bush called a special session of the Florida legislature. Both the Florida House and Senate passed Terri’s Law, granting Bush the authority to order Terri’s feeding tube to be reinserted.

Michael Schiavo’s right-to-die attorney George Felos immediately challenged the constitutionality of the law. Judge Baird of the Sixth Circuit ruled Terri’s Law unconstitutional on May 5, 2004. His ruling was upheld by the Florida Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

Terri’s feeding tube was removed for the third and final time on March 18, 2005 at the order of Judge Greer. In a rare weekend session, Congress passed the Relief of the Parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo Act, which allowed Terri’s parents to have a federal court review their case. Robert and Mary Schindler’s subsequent request was denied by both U.S. District Court Judge James Whittemore and the U.S. Supreme Court.

At 9:05 a.m. on March 31, 2005, Terri Schiavo died from severe dehydration. But Terri’s story did not end there—it was only the beginning. Her death ignited a powerful movement to save thousands of other Americans like her.

Death Without Dignity

The so-called “right-to-die” or “death with dignity” movement has established a powerful influence, particularly in the medical community. They have been able to successfully reclassify a feeding tube as “medical treatment,” making it somehow acceptable to starve and dehydrate an innocent human being to death even though we all need food and water to survive. But perhaps even more disturbing is how they have convinced the general public that some people’s lives are not worth living because of their age, illness, or disability.  

The effectiveness of the death with dignity movement, coupled with changes in public policy, now puts the lives of many people like Terri in the hands of doctors, medical boards, and ethics committees. In other words, families are being completely removed from the decision-making process of what care their family member should receive.

Contrary to the picture painted by Michael Schiavo’s attorney, right-to-die advocates, and the mainstream media, Terri Schiavo’s death was anything but “peaceful and painless.” After nearly two weeks without food or water, Terri’s lips were extremely cracked and blistered. Her skin began turning different shades of yellow and blue. Her breathing became shallow and rapid, and her moaning indicated the excruciating pain she was experiencing. Her face became extremely thin and bony, with her teeth protruding forward. Blood began to pool in her deeply sunken eyes.

This is the way Terri Schiavo died. Anyone who calls this type of death “peaceful and painless” is either ignorant or lying. There is a reason the court ordered no cameras or video in Terri’s room—they wanted to hide the truth and conceal a murder.

The Spread of Assisted Suicide and Its Slippery Slope

Laws decriminalizing assisted suicide are gaining traction. Currently, seven states plus the District of Columbia allow physician-assisted suicide. In 2009, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that nothing in state law prevented a physician from helping a terminally ill, fully aware patient commit suicide. Twenty states are debating such legislation this year alone. And while right-do-die advocates argue that these laws allow people to die with dignity, the case of Terri Schiavo proves otherwise.

Assisted suicide laws put the United States on a very slippery slope, a slope that will ultimately lead to more cases like Terri Schiavo. Most “death with dignity” laws require a doctor’s prognosis of six months or less to live in order to administer drugs that will end the patient’s life. And although doctors have far more knowledge than the average person, a prognosis is still an educated guess. That person could live weeks, months, or even years after their predicted death date. In short, assisted suicide laws could kill people who have a lot of life left to live.

Furthermore, assisted suicide opens the door to euthanasia. Assisted suicide always requires the patient’s consent and participation to hasten death, whether by taking lethal drugs or other means. Euthanasia, on the other hand, does not require the patient’s participation but can be administered completely by a doctor. Even more disturbing, not all euthanasia is voluntary. Some patients are euthanized without the consent of themselves or their family.

For example, last month, Fairview Hospital in Edina, Minnesota had threatened to remove oxygen from Catie Cassidy, a 64-year-old lung cancer patient who would have suffocated to death without oxygen. In video documented by the Life Legal and Defense Foundation, Cassidy clearly states that she wants to live. Thankfully, the Life Legal and Defense Foundation won her case and she continues to receive oxygen. But Catie Cassidy’s story represents what will happen when patient consent is disregarded and families are excluded from end-of-life decisions. As the government takes over more and more of the health care sector, they will naturally be more involved in the decision-making process. What is stopping governments from passing laws to weed out the disabled, elderly, or terminally ill—people who some would say cannot contribute anything to society?

In fact, this is already happening. Oregon, ironically the first state to legalize assisted suicide in the U.S., passed a law last year allowing patients with Alzheimer’s, dementia, and other mental illnesses to be starved and dehydrated to death. If the patient had not previously given directions about their healthcare (known as a “contrary advanced directive”) should they become mentally impaired, this bill now allows caretakers to deprive the patient of food and water. Countries that have had assisted suicide for years now—like Canada and the Netherlands—are now looking to expand their laws to allow for more and more assisted suicides, even for those who haven’t requested it. This is eerily reminiscent of the eugenics espoused by Charles Darwin and put into practice by Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany. It is also the premise upon which Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood. America, the freest nation in the world, will cease to be free if it embraces these philosophies.  

Life is Precious at All Stages

Who are we to decide when a person should die or when a life is not worth living? Just because a person cannot care for themselves doesn’t mean they can’t contribute something to society, as Terri Schiavo’s life so clearly demonstrated. All life is precious and created in the image of God. We all have something to contribute, regardless of our age, disability, illness, or prognosis. As a nation that boasts of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” we must protect life at all stages—from conception until natural death.

Values Voters Help President Trump Defy History in Expanding Pro-Life Majority in the U.S. Senate

by FRCA Media Office

November 7, 2018

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 6, 2018 CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Macie Malone, (866) FRC-NEWS

WASHINGTON, DC – Leading up to Election Day, Family Research Council Action (FRC Action), organized a fleet of four Values Buses that made scores of stops in a dozen battleground states and organized the distribution of nearly 2 million voter guides targeting supporters, churches, activist groups, and state/local organizations. FRC also held 140 pastor events in 19 states. FRC Action teams knocked on more than 427,000 doors and launched a social media blitz across a dozen states that were viewed more than 7 million times.

Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins released the following statement on tonight’s election results:

Most presidents lose seats in the House and Senate in the first midterm election. But President Trump defied history, expanding the GOP majority in the Senate despite losing the House. Why? Because this is a president who has done something rare in American politics. He is fulfilling campaign promises such as stopping the use of taxpayer dollars for abortions and putting an end to 8 years of a withering assault on religious freedom.

As they did two years ago, values voters turned out in droves — motivated by a president who is not just stopping the liberal policies of his predecessor but dismantling them.

While Democrats appear to have narrowly taken control of the House of Representatives, they did so without any clear governing mandate. Nancy Pelosi certainly cannot claim a blanket endorsement of her radical policies.   However, President Trump and Senate Republicans certainly have a mandate to confirm constitutionalists to the nation’s courts and oppose the Pelosi agenda.   Consider that voters in West Virginia and Alabama approved pro-life ballot measures and polls show nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose the government’s forcing taxpayers to fund abortion. There is simply no groundswell of support for forcing taxpayers to become indentured servants to the abortion industry.

We will stand with President Trump and Majority Leader McConnell in working to repel the Pelosi agenda that is at odds with the values that made America a great nation,” concluded Perkins.

-30-

Putting Patients First

by Worth Loving

June 12, 2018

With so many advancements in the field of medicine, people have access to more life-saving treatments than perhaps ever before. Hundreds of thousands of federal tax dollars go towards research of such treatments with the goal of giving people the best quality of life possible. However, the Left has exploited this funding to accomplish their own radical agenda, often at the expense of the well-being of patients.

One of these cases involves stem cell research. When National Institutes of Health (NIH) director Francis Collins began his tenure in 2009, he specifically directed funding to be used for embryonic stem cell research—to the tune of 200 million taxpayer dollars per year. We know that the embryo is a human life and that destroying it for research is not only profoundly evil but a blatant breach of basic ethical scientific practice, a fact which Dr. Collins either ignores or denies. But as director of an institution designed to help Americans live better lives, he also ignores established research about stem cells.

According to Dr. David Prentice of the Charlotte B. Lozier Institute, embryonic stem cells have failed to produce even one cure for a deadly or debilitating disease. On the other hand, adult stem cell research has produced over 70 treatments for deadly and debilitating conditions such as cancer, lupus, and scleroderma. To date, adult stem cell research has helped over one million people. Every year, there are 20,000 adult stem cell transplants in the United States alone that help Americans live better lives.

There are two fundamental principles at stake in this debate. First is the morality of ending a human life. Taxpayers should not be forced to violate their conscience by paying for embryonic stem cell research, and our government should certainly not be involved in it. The other fundamental issue is if we want to support research that would improve people’s lives or continue promoting a destructive agenda at their expense.

In 2017, Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) introduced the Patients First Act that would direct the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the NIH to instead spend that $200 million every year on adult stem cell research. Rep. Banks recently stopped by FRC headquarters to tell us more about his bill and how it would protect the consciences of taxpayers and help those dealing with deadly and debilitating diseases. Check out his lecture here

Finally, contact your representative in Congress and ask them to co-sponsor the Patients First Act.

Defending the Free Speech Rights of Pregnancy Centers

by Worth Loving

May 22, 2018

Pregnancy can be one of the most vulnerable times in a woman’s life, especially when the pregnancy is unexpected. It’s extremely important that a woman have a strong support group during such a time. For many women facing unplanned pregnancies, pregnancy resource centers provide the support needed for the woman to carry her baby to term and equip her to raise the child in a loving home.

There are two types of crisis pregnancy centers, licensed and unlicensed. Unlicensed pregnancy centers are authorized to provide any type of non-medical support including pregnancy kits, education, support groups, clothing, and so on. Licensed pregnancy centers provide all these services as well but are also authorized to provide limited medical services. Unlike Planned Parenthood, pregnancy resource centers charge nothing for their services. Oftentimes, pregnancy centers are strategically located in poor communities where medical care is hard to find. No one seeking their services is turned away.

Now, the very mission of these pregnancy centers is under attack in California through a law known as the California FACT Act. Passed in 2015, the law requires pregnancy centers to promote a message directly contrary to their mission. For licensed facilities, the law requires a state-approved message regarding abortion referrals to be posted in the pregnancy centers. Interestingly, the law doesn’t require licensed pregnancy centers to promote wellness and nutrition programs for women, infants, and children or anything of the sort. For non-licensed facilities, the law requires that the pregnancy center post a message explaining that they are not a licensed medical facility and therefore cannot provide any related services, something these pregnancy centers have never claimed to do.

Shortly after the passage of the California FACT Act, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) with the help of Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit against California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, arguing that the law violated the free speech rights of pregnancy centers. After working its way through the lower courts, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of NIFLA v. Becerra in November 2017. Oral arguments were heard on March 20, and a decision is expected to be announced at the end of the Court’s term next month.

It certainly appears that precedent is on the side of pregnancy centers. Several cases have been decided in favor of private individuals and institutions who were being compelled to promote or participate in a message or action contrary to their beliefs or mission. It also appears that the current justices have serious reservations about the constitutionality of the California FACT Act. During oral arguments for NIFLA v. Becerra, several of the more liberal justices voiced concerns that the law was not only burdensome but specifically targeted pregnancy centers, something Justice Elena Kagan called a “serious issue.”

Defendants in the case, including the state of California, argue that pregnancy centers are willfully deceiving women into believing that abortion is not an option and that they must disclose abortion services. In the end, though, Attorney General Becerra’s legal team conceded that no charges have ever been filed against a single pregnancy center in the state of California; and they have yet to bring forward a woman who has been harmed by a pregnancy center.

Pregnancy centers have never claimed to be full service. Their goal is to provide services to a mother in need so that her baby may develop fully and that she may love and nurture the child. What’s at stake in this case is the First Amendment right of pregnancy centers to refuse to promote a message directly contrary to their mission. Last week, Congressman Andy Harris, a medical doctor from Maryland, spoke on the importance of this case at FRC. As he said, “The First Amendment gives you the right to say things. It also gives you the right not to say things, and that’s what this case is about.” To find out more about this critical case and how you can support pregnancy centers in your area, watch Rep. Harris’ full lecture.

10 Reasons Why We Marched for Life

by Patrina Mosley

January 22, 2018

This year marked the 45th annual March for Life to protest the Roe v. Wade decision that changed the course of human dignity in America forever. Forty-five years ago, seven Supreme Court justices ruled that it was perfectly legal, and in fact a right for a mother to kill her own child in the womb. The first March for Life was just a year after this 1973 decision and advocates for the right to life haven’t stopped marching since! 

Unlike the Women’s March, which had no clear purpose or goals (and if you were not a liberal, pro-choice, secular humanist who didn’t vote for Trump, you were not welcomed), advocates for life gathered for a purpose that extends beyond Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Here are ten reasons why we marched for life:

    1. Life is precious and we are made in the image of God. That image gives glory to God. Genesis 1:26-28 shows that people, human beings, are the crown of God’s creation because He patterned our design after himself. God did this for nothing else in His creation. We have His attributes and divine involvement in the procreation of life and all its stages. Psalms 139:13-16 beautifully records:
      “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.”

      Through this intimate account by the psalmist David, we see the attributes and glory of God as being all-powerful, all-knowing, and always present. This account only affirms what modern science can tell us today about the development of a baby in the womb.

    2. The abortion industry was built on a genocidal philosophy, and this philosophy is still succeeding today. Martin Luther King wasn’t the only one with a dream. The dream of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was to weed out what she called “the unfit” from society. This included the poor, the sick, the disabled, and minorities. In her own plans to market to the “unfit,” she cautioned, “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” Today, over 79 percent of Planned Parenthood facilities are located within walking distance of black or Hispanic neighborhoods. Coincidence? I think not. Though abortion industry advocates might tell you that they are just concerned and want to provide access to those who are most vulnerable to unintended pregnancies or economic hardship, there is a reason this type of family planning started in these communities and continues to this day. How is it that the African-American community has been a part of this country as early as the 1600’s and represent less than 13 percent of the population today? This is true systemic racism.
    3. Abortion masquerading as “healthcare” is the biggest lie in America right now. Abortion poses an undisputed risk to women’s physical and mental health. After an abortion, it’s not uncommon to develop blood clots, hemorrhaging, and infection due to injury to the cervix. Abortion also increases the risk of breast cancer and premature births. Immediate medical complications affect approximately 10 percent of women undergoing abortions, and approximately one-fifth of these complications are life-threatening.
    4. The emotional and psychological harm done to women due to abortion is overwhelming—we must protect them both. The risk of suicide is three times greater for women who aborted than women who have not. Forty-two percent of women who aborted their child reported major depression by the age of 25. In a recent study done on 987 post-abortive women, only 6.6 percent of respondents reported using prescription drugs for psychological health prior to the first pregnancy that ended in abortion, compared with 51 percent who reported prescription drug use after the first abortion. A pro-life activist shared a statement she heard from post-abortive women that still sticks with her today: “Not a day goes by when the first thought that comes to my mind upon waking is ‘I actually PAID someone to kill my child.’”
    5. Abortion is neither empowerment nor a blessing. Abortion destroys life, glamorizes selfishness, enables reckless behavior, brings emotional trauma to both the man and the woman, and places an endorsement of complacency in building families.
    6. Convenience or coercion from others to abort a child does not determine inherent value or worth. Of the 987 women who participated in the study from above, 58.3 percent of the women reported aborting their child “to make others happy,” while 73.8 percent disagree that their decision to abort was entirely free from even subtle pressure from others to abort. A person’s value and worth should not be determined by if they are wanted or even healthy, but simply by being made in the image of God, and with that comes a plan for their life and the lives they will impact.
    7. It’s the right thing to do. To know the right thing to do and not do it is sinful and wrong for us to ignore (James 4:17). The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. even said: “The time is always right to do what is right.” Abortion is the most horrific injustice we could ever see—killing someone before they even have a chance to breathe. An estimated 60 million children have been extinguished from our society due to abortion.
    8. The hundreds of thousands who come to the March for Life annually have the power to change the hearts and minds of the American people, which can ultimately lead to changes in policy. Because we haven’t given up, we’ve seen massive pro-life legislation passed at the state level, and much of this legislation is gaining momentum at the federal level. On the day of the 45th March for Life, we saw the U.S. House of Representatives pass H.R. 4712, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would require any health physician present to administer life-saving care to a child who survived an attempted abortion. We also saw the biggest showing of White House support for the pro-life movement than ever before! For the second year in a row, Vice President Mike Pence addressed the crowd, stating “My friends, life is winning in America because Love Saves Lives,” referencing the theme of this year’s March for Life. Also, for the first time ever in American history, a sitting president, Donald J. Trump, visually addressed the March for Life. He said: “Americans are more and more pro-life… In fact, only 12 percent of Americans support abortion on demand at any time. Under my administration, we will always defend the very first right in the Declaration of Independence, and that is the right to life.”
    9. Because we love. The March for Life is one of the most selfless acts of compassion one can be a part of. Not only are you marching to save lives, but you are marching to remember the lives that are no more—many of whom you don’t even know. But that doesn’t matter because all you need to know is that it was a life—a life that was taken for the sake of profit and a mother who is now left to deal with the emotional trauma. We love them both, and that love compels each of us to march and be the defenders of life and the broken.
    10. We are not alone. At the March for Life, you get to see other people from all different backgrounds from across the country, even from other parts of the world, that value life just like you and are willing to brave the cold and go the distance to see the sanctity of life restored. It’s a brotherhood and sisterhood of a love of another kind. At this March, you didn’t have to be a “Never-Trumper,” a Republican, a religious person, or heterosexual. People from all walks of life were united in a simple belief: that every life has value and was created just as God intended, and therefore deserves justice.

Why FRC Action Supports the Graham-Cassidy Legislation Repealing Obamacare

by FRC Action

September 19, 2017

 

Family Research Council Action along with FRC and Susan B. Anthony List (SBA) support the FY17 reconciliation legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.). The Graham-Cassidy legislation would reapply to federal health care law the principle contained in the Hyde Amendment that abortion is not health care and should not be subsidized. It redirects taxpayer funding away from abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood and provides better state-based health insurance solutions for families than Obamacare.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser released the following joint statement in support of the Graham-Cassidy legislation:

We applaud Senators Graham and Cassidy for their leadership and strongly endorse the bill they have crafted. This legislation offers Republicans the best chance to fulfill their promises to repeal and replace Obamacare, stop taxpayer funding of abortion, and redirect tax dollars away from the nation’s largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood, to comprehensive health care alternatives.

It is now well past time for Republicans in Congress to deliver on those promises. The Graham-Cassidy bill offers them the best chance to do that, with only 51 votes needed in the Senate to pass it before the September 30 deadline. The prior Congress passed legislation to repeal Obamacare and fund alternatives instead of Planned Parenthood that would have become law had it not been vetoed by President Obama, and now they have a commitment from President Trump to sign it. The pro-life majority controls both chambers of Congress and the White House. The GOP is without excuse. We urge them to keep their promise and repeal Obamacare and end the forced partnership between taxpayers and Planned Parenthood. Failure to keep their promise to voters will bring into question whether this Congress can truly be called the ‘pro-life Congress.’ Rhetoric must be translated into verifiable action.

Should robust efforts to enact the Graham-Cassidy legislation through the FY2017 Reconciliation bill run out of time, then the fight to redirect funds from Planned Parenthood must move immediately to the FY2018 Tax Reconciliation bill. Planned Parenthood proudly self-reports taking the innocent lives of 328,348 unborn children last year and nearly one million over the past three years. That is 900 lives snuffed out before their first breath every single day by a single taxpayer-funded abortion chain. This tragedy is compounded every day that passes with inaction. The time for results is now. Lives depend on Congress’ leadership and action to enact the Graham-Cassidy bill.”

Stand with David - Sign the Petition Today!

by FRC Action

July 26, 2017

David Daleiden led the project that brought to light the footage of Planned Parenthood employees discussing the selling of baby body parts in 2015. Since then, Daleiden has started the #PPSellsBabyParts campaign on Twitter and has continued to be a strong activist on behalf of the most vulnerable. However, the National Abortion Federation (NAF) has sued Daleiden by claiming that the videos were illegally obtained and that their distribution poses a possible threat to the lives of abortionists across the country. U.S. District Judge William Orrick has ruled that David must take his video content off the web. David complied but his attorney placed the videos on his own website to keep them public. Judge Orrick reacted by saying that David was in contempt of the court. He also slapped him with additional fines, upward of $150,000.

David’s defense team has called for Judge Orrick to recuse himself as the sitting judge of the case because of his personal bias toward and support of Planned Parenthood. As evidence of Judge Orrick’s bias, David’s team has cited statements made on May 25th that imply that he believed David meant to cause personal harm to abortionists by releasing the videos. They also cited the fact that Judge Orrick has worked for over 20 years with a Planned Parenthood affiliate, the Good Samaritan Resource Center, and donated $5,072 to the resource center in 2006. Additionally, it appears that members of Judge Orrick’s family have publicly supported court rulings against David on social media.

Those who support the pro-life cause and the work that David undertook to reveal the practice of Planned Parenthood and the NAF in selling baby body parts should join in signing this petition. Judge Orrick’s bias must be reviewed to ensure that Daleiden is given fair treatment before the law and to ensure that justice is served. David is counting on us to make our voices heard and to stand with him. Stand with David Daleiden in his legal battle and also tell Congress to defund Planned Parenthood by signing this petition: Support Daleiden.

Georgia’s Pro-Life 6th District: Money Does Not Equal Votes

by Philip Rhein

June 22, 2017

In the most expensive congressional race in history, the election for Georgia’s 6th district demonstrated that spending a greater amount of money will not necessarily translate into a decisive win. While Planned Parenthood and its affiliates had intended this election to serve as an example of how worn out the country is of Republican legislators, it has had the opposite effect of re-asserting Georgian voters’ commitment to pro-life leadership.

Pro-life candidate, Karen Handel, defeated her pro-abortion challenger, Jon Ossoff, by 3.8 percent. According to Open Secrets, the two outside groups that spent the most to help Ossoff were the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Planned Parenthood Action Fund – the latter of which spent close to $800,000.

Although June 20th was the closest the Democratic Party has come to winning this district in 40 years, comparing how much each candidate spent per vote reveals a striking contrast.

This election is one example of how far this country has come in its support of the pro-life movement. Contrary to what Planned Parenthood would have Americans believe, recent polls have shown that at least 78 percent of Americans favor strong abortion restrictions. Massive campaign funds, aggressive door-to-door advertising, and hundreds of TV and radio commercials, funded by out-of-state donors, are not enough to convince pro-life voters to abandon their values at the election booth.

The election on June 20th infers that the 6th district of Georgia has voted pro-life, despite the incredible pressure placed on voters from the over $32 million of pro-abortion/pro-Ossoff advertising. This election should reassure and inspire pro-life advocates around the country. It demonstrates that regardless of how much is spent, staunch Georgian voters will not be bought or convinced to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

Watch Do No Harm: The Peril of Physician-Assisted Suicide

by FRC Action

May 19, 2017

By authorizing doctors to violate the Hippocratic Oath of “do no harm,” physician-assisted suicide undermines our nation’s most cherished values of providing compassionate care to the sick and dying. Assisted suicide prevents vulnerable citizens with life-limiting illnesses from receiving the best palliative medical care when they need it most. Earlier this year, Washington, D.C. joined six other states in legalizing physician-assisted suicide.

As a physician of over 25 years and a strong supporter of patient rights and access to quality care, Congressman Brad Wenstrup has led the charge in Congress to repeal the D.C. law and ensure that safeguards stay in place to protect our nation’s most vulnerable citizens. Congressman Wenstrup shared with the Family Research Council why physician-assisted suicide should not be a partisan issue, but a human issue. Some of his arguments that he used include:

  • Moving personal accounts of families who were drawn closer together through the death of a loved one, experiences that would have been cut short or missed altogether if assisted suicide.
  • The lack of accountability in tracking potential abuses that comes with these laws.
  • The lethal drug that is used to commit assisted suicide has in many cases been used to kill people who do not have a terminal illness.
  • Assisted suicide decreases options for patients, because insurance companies would rather fund lethal drugs instead of potentially life-saving procedures, since it is often the cheapest means of “treatment.”

Do No Harm: The Peril of Physician-Assisted Suicide provides valuable information on why physician-assisted suicide isn’t just bad policy, but bad for humanity. Congressman Wenstrup’s extensive medical background and personal experience with cancer in his own family gives him unique insight into why this policy is detrimental to society by way of its devaluing of human life.

Click here to view

  • Page 1 of 2
  • 1
  • 2
FRC Action Blog blog_goto
Pornography: America's Hidden Public Health Crisis
by Worth Loving (Oct. 30, 2019)

...

Instagram ig_follow