Sandra Fluke call your office.
The deadly side-effects of contraceptives and chemical abortifacients posing as contraceptives have been known for some time so why won't the people hawking this stuff warn women?
Contraceptive pills cause 20 deaths annually in France: Survey (This didn't hit the US mainstream press.)
Yasmin and Yaz side effects and deaths lawsuit
The dark side of Birth Control
And now they want us to pay for this poison.
As I told my doctor when he tried to sell me birth control, "No, those things'll kill ya."
Friday, April 26, 2013
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Washington Woman Shares Abortion Testimony with National Audience
During my 5 years as Regional Coordinator for the Washington state Silent No More Awareness Campaign I met so many great post-abortive women. One of them was Nancy Murray. I recently reconnected with her and discovered that she has recetly shared her testimony in the Celebrate Life magazine. It's a beautiful story of mercy and forgiveness.
She is a writer in Richland, Washington and blogs at Catholic Ethics.
If you are hurting after an abortion there is hope. See Project Rachel or Silent No More Awareness Campaign.
If you live in Washington state it's not to late to join the next post-abortion healing retreat:
Next retreat: May 3-5, 2013
She is a writer in Richland, Washington and blogs at Catholic Ethics.
If you are hurting after an abortion there is hope. See Project Rachel or Silent No More Awareness Campaign.
If you live in Washington state it's not to late to join the next post-abortion healing retreat:
Hope
and Healing After Abortion
Healing and hope are awaiting you on a Rachel’s
Vineyard Retreat™.Next retreat: May 3-5, 2013
Call
Valerie: 1-800-822-HOPE (4673)
You are loved with an everlasting Love!
Project
Rachel is a program of Catholic Community Services.You are loved with an everlasting Love!
Tuesday, April 02, 2013
The Big Lie: Reproductive "Parity" Bill. Planned Parenthood cares neither for parity or parity
That is they care neither for equality or childbearing. All they want is abortion.
At a public hearing on EHB 1044 on so-called "reproductive parity" yesterday, Jonathan Bloedow of AIW and Bloedow v. Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest tells the Senate Health Care Committee that if Planned Parenthood wants all these abortions to take place, they can pay for them. They certainly have the funds and as the lawsuit shows they've been stealing from the taxpayers for years.
Karen Keiser, Planned Parenthood's reliable mouth-piece, tries to shut down Jonathan's testimony when it's clear he's going right to the heart of the problem -- PP CEO Christine Charbonneau and PPGW
There's lots of great testimony from the truely pro-parity side. Jonathan's testimony starts around 1:13:50.
At a public hearing on EHB 1044 on so-called "reproductive parity" yesterday, Jonathan Bloedow of AIW and Bloedow v. Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest tells the Senate Health Care Committee that if Planned Parenthood wants all these abortions to take place, they can pay for them. They certainly have the funds and as the lawsuit shows they've been stealing from the taxpayers for years.
Karen Keiser, Planned Parenthood's reliable mouth-piece, tries to shut down Jonathan's testimony when it's clear he's going right to the heart of the problem -- PP CEO Christine Charbonneau and PPGW
There's lots of great testimony from the truely pro-parity side. Jonathan's testimony starts around 1:13:50.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Lawsuit Filed by Publisher of Abortion in Washington Finds Planned Parenthood Defrauded Taxpayers in Wash. state
Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys file third lawsuit to expose abortion giant's mishandling of taxpayer dollars
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Attorney sound bite: Michael Norton
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Attorney sound bite: Michael Norton
SEATTLE — Planned Parenthood submitted “repeated false, fraudulent, and/or ineligible claims for reimbursement” to the state of Washington’s Department of Social and Health Services, according to a federal lawsuit made public Tuesday. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed the lawsuit in July 2011 on behalf of Jonathan Bloedow, a Washington resident who discovered the alleged frauds through state open records requests.
“Americans deserve to know, especially in economic times like these, if their hard-earned tax money is being funneled to groups that are misusing it,” said Senior Counsel Michael J. Norton, a former U.S. Attorney. “Compliance with the law should not be sacrificed for the sake of Planned Parenthood’s bottom line. They have cheated the American taxpayer for too long. It’s time the abortion giant is held accountable.”
Federal law allows “whistleblowers” with inside information to expose fraudulent billing by government contractors. By law, such cases must initially be filed under seal and may not be made public while federal authorities decide whether to join the case.
Bloedow has sued under the federal False Claims Act. The suit alleges that Planned Parenthood submitted false claims to Washington’s Department of Social and Health Services and its Health and Recovery Services Administration. HRSA runs the state’s Title XIX Medicaid program.
The lawsuit alleges that Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest filed at least 25,000 false claims with HRSA for reimbursements in excess of the amount allowed for oral contraceptive pills and at least another 25,000 for reimbursements in excess of the amount allowed for “emergency contraceptive” (“Plan B”) pills under the federal government’s 340B drug reimbursement program. Total damages could be as much as $377,134,130.
The allegations of Bloedow’s complaint are consistent with a 2011 Government Accountability Office report that concluded that HRSA monitoring of the 340B program was inadequate and recommended that “HRSA take steps to strengthen oversight regarding program participation and compliance with program requirements.”
Alliance Defending Freedom has filed two prior False Claims Act lawsuits, Johnson v. Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas and Thayer v. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland. Bloedow v. Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Allied Attorney Todd Nelson with Nelson Law Group in Seattle is co-counsel and is one of nearly 2,200 allied attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom.
In 2012, Alliance Defending Freedom publicly released its report to Congress that identified nearly $100 million in waste, abuse, and potential fraud committed by Planned Parenthood affiliates and other providers. Seventy-two Members of Congress, led by Rep. Diane Black of Tennessee and Rep. Pete Olson of Texas, continue to press for the investigation of how Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest purveyor of abortions, has spent more than $2.3 billion of federal taxpayer dollars over the last few years.
“Americans deserve to know, especially in economic times like these, if their hard-earned tax money is being funneled to groups that are misusing it,” said Senior Counsel Michael J. Norton, a former U.S. Attorney. “Compliance with the law should not be sacrificed for the sake of Planned Parenthood’s bottom line. They have cheated the American taxpayer for too long. It’s time the abortion giant is held accountable.”
Federal law allows “whistleblowers” with inside information to expose fraudulent billing by government contractors. By law, such cases must initially be filed under seal and may not be made public while federal authorities decide whether to join the case.
Bloedow has sued under the federal False Claims Act. The suit alleges that Planned Parenthood submitted false claims to Washington’s Department of Social and Health Services and its Health and Recovery Services Administration. HRSA runs the state’s Title XIX Medicaid program.
The lawsuit alleges that Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest filed at least 25,000 false claims with HRSA for reimbursements in excess of the amount allowed for oral contraceptive pills and at least another 25,000 for reimbursements in excess of the amount allowed for “emergency contraceptive” (“Plan B”) pills under the federal government’s 340B drug reimbursement program. Total damages could be as much as $377,134,130.
The allegations of Bloedow’s complaint are consistent with a 2011 Government Accountability Office report that concluded that HRSA monitoring of the 340B program was inadequate and recommended that “HRSA take steps to strengthen oversight regarding program participation and compliance with program requirements.”
Alliance Defending Freedom has filed two prior False Claims Act lawsuits, Johnson v. Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas and Thayer v. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland. Bloedow v. Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Allied Attorney Todd Nelson with Nelson Law Group in Seattle is co-counsel and is one of nearly 2,200 allied attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom.
In 2012, Alliance Defending Freedom publicly released its report to Congress that identified nearly $100 million in waste, abuse, and potential fraud committed by Planned Parenthood affiliates and other providers. Seventy-two Members of Congress, led by Rep. Diane Black of Tennessee and Rep. Pete Olson of Texas, continue to press for the investigation of how Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest purveyor of abortions, has spent more than $2.3 billion of federal taxpayer dollars over the last few years.
- Pronunciation guide: Bloedow (BLAY’-dow)
Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Must Read: Rep. Steve O'Ban's Floor Speech on HB 1044
Right not to be Coerced to Take Human Life
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not about one’s views on regulating abortion or a women’s right to choose. This bill is about the value we place on the freedom of conscience. This bill is a test of all of us in this chamber. Do we nurture and celebrate people who follow their conscience? Or, do we burden and undermine conscience? And not just any issue of conscience is at stake.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not about one’s views on regulating abortion or a women’s right to choose. This bill is about the value we place on the freedom of conscience. This bill is a test of all of us in this chamber. Do we nurture and celebrate people who follow their conscience? Or, do we burden and undermine conscience? And not just any issue of conscience is at stake.
This bill would force Americans to violate conscience on the most
profound moral issue imaginable. This bill would force Americans to assist in
taking what they believe to be innocent human life. Since the Quakers in
colonial America were jailed for refusing to serve in colonial militias, our
nation has affirmed the right of conscience. Their refusal to take life changed
colonial laws and in every armed conflict since, Americans have been exempted
for conscience sake. Our laws have responded to protect conscience, again and
again.
- Within weeks of Roe v Wade in 1973, every state and the federal gov’t enacted exemptions so doctors would not be forced to take human life.
- Our state’s physician-assisted suicide laws, exempt physicians from being coerced to take human life.
- Our state corrections employees are excused from participating in state executions.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Washington State overwhelmingly supports parental-notification
HUMAN LIFE
______ of _____
W A S H I N G T O N
Jan.
22,
2013
For Interview Contact: Peggy O’Ban, 425-789-8689
For Interview Contact: Peggy O’Ban, 425-789-8689
Washington
State overwhelmingly supports parental-notification
(Bellevue,
WA) In a poll commissioned by Human Life WA, Washington State voters
are widely supportive of laws concerning “parental
involvement” in abortion decisions for girls under the age of 18 (62-29% with
just under 10% undecided). Further, strong support for
this proposal outnumbers strong opposition by a margin of nearly three-to-one
(48% strongly favor, 18% strongly oppose).
A
proposal requiring “parents be notified” before a girl under age 18 could have
an abortion elicits even wider support – 65% favor, 25% oppose
and 9% undecided. Again, the intensity on this issue is on the
support side (51% strongly favor, 17% strongly oppose).
The
survey was conducted January 10 & 12, 2013 by Moore Information, Inc
. It reveals that parental involvement and notification are
supported by a majority of parents regardless of their views on abortion.
The
issue has longstanding support in Washington State. In 1995, Sen.
Mike Padden, R-Spokane Valley, then
chairman of the House Law and Justice Committee, co-sponsored a parental
notification bill. It went on to receive House approval but did not
receive a hearing in the Senate.
This time parental notification will receive a public hearing in the Senate.
In
a 1/22/2013 press release issued earlier today, Padden, now chairman of the Law and Justice Committee
in the Senate--the committee to which SB 5156 on parental notification has been
assigned--cites Human Life’s survey results and pledges the bill will have a
public hearing.
Please
see the attached for survey Power Point, including standard, scientific
methodology.
—30—
For more information contact Peggy O’Ban
at 425-789-8689 or email Dan Kennedy
at dan@humanlife.net
Padden says committee will have hearing on abortion-notification bill
OLYMPIA… Sen. Mike Padden says the Senate Law and Justice
Committee will have a public hearing on a bill that would require a girl’s
parent or guardian to be notified before she can have an abortion.
Padden,
R-Spokane Valley, is among the 18 sponsors of Senate
Bill 5156, which was introduced Monday but is not yet scheduled for a
hearing. He said it’s a proposal that has support from parents regardless of
their views on abortion.
“If
your daughter became pregnant and was considering an abortion, wouldn’t you
want to know far enough ahead of time to talk with her about it or get ready to
care for her afterward? This bill wouldn’t prohibit an underage girl from
having an abortion, but it would make sure a parent or guardian has the chance
to have that conversation, to provide that care,” Padden said.
Padden
shared results from a recent statewide poll commissioned by Human Life of
Washington, conducted by Moore Information. Of those responding, 65 percent
were in favor when asked about a proposal along the lines of SB 5156, requiring
“parents be notified” before a girl under age 18 could have an abortion; 25
percent were opposed and 9 percent were undecided. Padden said the “strongly
favor” percentage greatly outweighed the “strongly oppose” group.
The
measure that will come before Padden’s committee would require that one parent
or guardian receive 48 hours’ actual notice from the person intending to
provide the abortion.
“When
you consider an underage girl can’t legally get a tattoo in our state, with or
without a parent’s permission, yet can have access to an abortion without the
parent even knowing, it puts things into perspective,” Padden said.
In 1995, as chairman of the law and justice committee in the House of Representatives, Padden co-sponsored and held a public hearing on a similar bill; it went on to receive House approval but did not receive a hearing in the Senate.
In
1998 the Senate approved a parental-notification
bill; it also received committee approval in the House but was not brought
to a full House vote.
—30—
For more information contact Eric Campbell at (360) 786-7037 or eric.campbell@leg.wa.gov
Sunday, December 16, 2012
A Completely New Idea to Transform the Abortion Debate
Since abortion was forced onto national agendas in countries around the world, it has been debated and promoted as part of "health care", or medicine. This has never been questioned anywhere that we have found in any literature.
We are comfortable here at AIW being the first in the world to put forward new ideas. Here is one.
What if we decided one day simply to stop going along with this Leftist Canard which says that abortion is "health care"? The fact is that every honest person knows that abortion does not cure any disease, or make anyone healthier. It is not health care. It is not medicine. Yes, it tends to be done by medical experts, and yes it is usually done with medical equipment, in medical settings, but there's no reason why that has to be the case.
You see, what is interesting about this is that we could extricate abortion from the world of health care and (true) medicine without ever touching the debate over legalization. It is perfectly possible to remove abortion from the realm of medical licensing, health insurance, medical privacy, etc., without making it any less legal than it is today. People have always assumed that one involves the other. But the arguments for legalization (privacy, etc.) are quite separate in reality from the question of who does them and where they are done and how they are paid for.
What would this look like in practice? First, abortion would not be done in hospitals. They would be done in dedicated abortion clinics that could not be passed off as medical facilities. This, of course, isn't too far from where we are today. One great benefit, however, would be that when you see a hospital or visit a doctor, you wouldn't be wondering in the back of your mind if they are involved with killing babies. The Hippocratic Oath could be honoured once again, and hospitals would look like hospitals again, instead of whole wings that look like Sandy Hook Elementary classrooms.
Second, abortion would not be done by doctors, but by dedicated hired killers. Abortionists would not be able to parade around with MD's after their names and benefit from the prestige that goes with being a doctor. They would stand before society exactly as they are, hired legal baby killers. And the society that tolerates them can stop pretending they are anything but that. If society isn't comfortable with legal, professional dedicated baby killers, it can choose to stop it.
Third, abortion training wouldn't be done in medical schools. It would be done by dedicated abortion training institutes. Or maybe it would be completely deregulated. Maybe anyone should be able to do an abortion. After all, Obama-Reid-Pelosi-Cantwell-Murray-Inslee keep telling us that the government shouldn't come between a woman and her abortionist. Why should the government decide who should be an abortionist? Oh wait, you haven't heard CNN come back with that follow-up question? Think about it. If they really mean what they say, then the state has no business deciding who is qualified to perform an abortion.
If you start to think about it for a little while, and envision what the true ramifications of Roe v Wade are, if abortion was extricated from health care, why shouldn't anyone with a syringe from PATH and a lab coat from a party supply store hang out a shingle and start doing abortions? Kermit Gosnell anyone? Let's see NARAL and Planned Parenthood stand up an get behind that.
Also, medical privacy laws would not apply. Today, women (and the man who in many cases force them into it, get to hide the shame of having an abortion under "medical privacy". This may be the single greatest obstacle to de-medicalizing abortion. But arguments for legalized abortion are completely unconnected to arguments for keeping your abortion secret. Just because we admit to everyone what is going on doesn't make it any less legal or accessible. The right to do x, y, or z does not entail to keep conceal the fact that you did x, y, or z. By severing abortion from its medical facade, those wanting to argue for abortion secrecy would be forced to do so outright. We could have an open debate about why women should be ashamed of something that is supposedly constitutional, legal, safe, positive, and empowering. Bring. It. On.
Finally, abortion would not be presumptively covered by health insurance, private or public, because it's not health care. Any organizations wanting to help pay for it would still be 100% permitted to do so, but they wouldn't be able to hide it under nice-sounding health insurance facades.
All the standard leftist pro-abort claptrap arguments abortion keeping abortion legal would be irrelevant to these changes. None of these changes would make abortion any less legal. All we are doing here is telling the truth. Abortion is legal killing by hired killers. Let's see if the abortion industry and its lackies can handle the truth.
We are comfortable here at AIW being the first in the world to put forward new ideas. Here is one.
What if we decided one day simply to stop going along with this Leftist Canard which says that abortion is "health care"? The fact is that every honest person knows that abortion does not cure any disease, or make anyone healthier. It is not health care. It is not medicine. Yes, it tends to be done by medical experts, and yes it is usually done with medical equipment, in medical settings, but there's no reason why that has to be the case.
You see, what is interesting about this is that we could extricate abortion from the world of health care and (true) medicine without ever touching the debate over legalization. It is perfectly possible to remove abortion from the realm of medical licensing, health insurance, medical privacy, etc., without making it any less legal than it is today. People have always assumed that one involves the other. But the arguments for legalization (privacy, etc.) are quite separate in reality from the question of who does them and where they are done and how they are paid for.
What would this look like in practice? First, abortion would not be done in hospitals. They would be done in dedicated abortion clinics that could not be passed off as medical facilities. This, of course, isn't too far from where we are today. One great benefit, however, would be that when you see a hospital or visit a doctor, you wouldn't be wondering in the back of your mind if they are involved with killing babies. The Hippocratic Oath could be honoured once again, and hospitals would look like hospitals again, instead of whole wings that look like Sandy Hook Elementary classrooms.
Second, abortion would not be done by doctors, but by dedicated hired killers. Abortionists would not be able to parade around with MD's after their names and benefit from the prestige that goes with being a doctor. They would stand before society exactly as they are, hired legal baby killers. And the society that tolerates them can stop pretending they are anything but that. If society isn't comfortable with legal, professional dedicated baby killers, it can choose to stop it.
Third, abortion training wouldn't be done in medical schools. It would be done by dedicated abortion training institutes. Or maybe it would be completely deregulated. Maybe anyone should be able to do an abortion. After all, Obama-Reid-Pelosi-Cantwell-Murray-Inslee keep telling us that the government shouldn't come between a woman and her abortionist. Why should the government decide who should be an abortionist? Oh wait, you haven't heard CNN come back with that follow-up question? Think about it. If they really mean what they say, then the state has no business deciding who is qualified to perform an abortion.
If you start to think about it for a little while, and envision what the true ramifications of Roe v Wade are, if abortion was extricated from health care, why shouldn't anyone with a syringe from PATH and a lab coat from a party supply store hang out a shingle and start doing abortions? Kermit Gosnell anyone? Let's see NARAL and Planned Parenthood stand up an get behind that.
Also, medical privacy laws would not apply. Today, women (and the man who in many cases force them into it, get to hide the shame of having an abortion under "medical privacy". This may be the single greatest obstacle to de-medicalizing abortion. But arguments for legalized abortion are completely unconnected to arguments for keeping your abortion secret. Just because we admit to everyone what is going on doesn't make it any less legal or accessible. The right to do x, y, or z does not entail to keep conceal the fact that you did x, y, or z. By severing abortion from its medical facade, those wanting to argue for abortion secrecy would be forced to do so outright. We could have an open debate about why women should be ashamed of something that is supposedly constitutional, legal, safe, positive, and empowering. Bring. It. On.
Finally, abortion would not be presumptively covered by health insurance, private or public, because it's not health care. Any organizations wanting to help pay for it would still be 100% permitted to do so, but they wouldn't be able to hide it under nice-sounding health insurance facades.
All the standard leftist pro-abort claptrap arguments abortion keeping abortion legal would be irrelevant to these changes. None of these changes would make abortion any less legal. All we are doing here is telling the truth. Abortion is legal killing by hired killers. Let's see if the abortion industry and its lackies can handle the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
