Guttmacher Institute - a research wolf in sheep's clothing

Why would the Guttmacher Institute incredibly blame abstinence education programs for a rise in teen pregnancies and abortions?  (See USA Today, "Teen pregnancies, abortions rise").
Ideology and money.
While the Guttmacher Institute casts itself as an objective research agency, it is an abortion advocacy group that lobbies lawmakers  and serves as the statistical propaganda arm of Planned Parenthood, whose president launched the Institute in 1968 . Planned Parenthood is a billion-dollar conglomerate that profits handsomely from administering contraceptives and performing 305,000 abortions a year.  Its CEO makes $384,000,  and the organization rakes in nearly $350 million a year in our tax dollars.
With that much money at stake, Planned Parenthood and their allies are lobbying for a monopoly on tax-funded sex education, with President Obama as an ally.  Congress must not yield to that temptation. Abstinence education offers teens a self-respecting, empowering message that engages their minds to protect not only their bodies, but their hearts as well.

Sex ed: Science finally catches up to Mom and Dad

The Christian Medical Association (CMA, www.cmda.org) has just issued a news release regarding a landmark published study on abstinence education:

Christian Medical Association on landmark abstinence study: "Mom and Dad really do know best"

Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the 16,000-member Christian Medical Association, today released this statement regarding a landmark study on abstinence education released Monday and published in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine:
"Science has finally caught up with logic and what parents have known for centuries, by empirically demonstrating that equipping teens to abstain from sexual activity is an effective way to prevent teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases."
The National Abstinence Education Association has noted, "A survey from Zogby International showing that when parents become aware of what abstinence education vs. comprehensive sex education actually teaches, support for abstinence programs jumps from 40% to 60%, while support for comprehensive programs drops from 50% to 30%. And 59% of parents said more funding should go to abstinence education; 22% said more should go to comprehensive sex education."
Dr. Stevens added, "It is notable that John B. Jemmott III, the University of Pennsylvania professor who led the federally funded study, candidly admitted, 'I think we've written off abstinence-only education without looking closely at the nature of the evidence.'"
Dr. Stevens explained, "What we should learn from this experience is that while science itself is objective, scientists themselves can be biased and can mislead the public and policy makers.
Dr. Stevens added, "Many groups and individuals up until yesterday had relentlessly railed against abstinence programs as totally ineffective, even counterproductive. They had used their own studies to convince many legislators, including President Obama, to eliminate federal funding for abstinence programs altogether, in the process depriving teens and their parents from a potent resource that can mean a lifesaving difference.

"It turns out that when it comes to educating their children on matters of sex, Mom and Dad really do know best."

Virginia abortion activists attack pregnancy centers with unconstitutional bill

Imagine that a sporting goods store owner who profits from sales of inhumane bear traps convinces the state legislature to pass a law forcing all anti-bear trap sporting goods stores to post a condemnatory legal notice on their entry doors.

The legal notice informs all potential customers that the store does not sell bear traps, that it is therefore not a "real" sporting goods store, and that it is not a reliable source for sporting information. The new law enables the bear trap seller to establish a virtual monopoly on all sporting goods sales.
Abortion industry lobbyists had in mind a similar scenario when they recently introduced a bill (HB 452 ) that sought to give Planned Parenthood and other abortionists a virtual monopoly on pregnant patients seeking help. The bill required pro-life pregnancy centers to prominently display a notice stating "that the facility is not a health care facility, that it does not perform or refer women for abortions, that it does not provide or refer women for contraception, and that the facility is not required to maintain medical confidentiality or medical records...."
The bill disregarded the reality that qualified medical doctors supervise ultrasound services at pregnancy centers, that performing abortions is hardly the gold standard for defining a health care facility, and that all pro-life pregnancy centers offer strictly confidential counseling regardless of legal requirements.
The bill also opened the door to withering attacks on its constitutionality by attorneys such as Denise Burke of Americans United for Life (AUL). Ms. Burke testified in both Virginia House and Senate that the vaguely worded bill violated constitutional due process by making pregnancy centers unconstitutionally vulnerable to capricious enforcement and unpredictable penalties.

Thankfully, a coalition of AUL, the Family Foundation, Care Net, and Heartbeat International managed to blunt the attack with sound reasoning and evidence, and bill was recently withdrawn.
Pregnancy centers can prepare for the inevitable future attacks by (a) forming ad hoc state coalitions to engage with legislators and (b) banding together with national pregnancy center associations such as CareNet and Heartbeat International. These organizations help maintain professional standards, track political developments and provide ongoing education to members.

Like a bad horror movie, the monsters keep popping up

Like a bad horror movie where the monsters start popping up again just when you think the threat is over, Congressional leaders are reemerging from the "Maassachusetts Massacre" determined to push through their frightening healthcare overhaul.

What part of NO don't these politicians understand?
Here's what the AP is reporting:

Democratic congressional leaders are coalescing around their last, best hope for salvaging President Barack Obama's sweeping health care overhaul.
Their plan is to pass the Senate bill with some changes to accommodate House Democrats, senior Democratic aides said Monday. Leaders will present the idea to the rank and file this week, but it's unclear whether they have enough votes to carry it out.
Last week's victory by Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts cost Democrats the 60th vote they need to maintain undisputed control of the Senate, jeopardizing the outcome of the health care bill just when Obama had brokered a final deal on most of the major issues.
"We've put so much effort into this, so much hard work, and we were so close to doing some significant things. Now we have to find the political path that brings us out. And it's not easy," the No. 2 Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, said Monday.
The new strategy is as politically risky as it is bold.  [read more]

"Bold"? How about maniacal?
If ever there were a political suicide mission, Democrat leaders jamming the healthcare bill through now against overwhelming public opposition and the wishes of many of their own party's members would certainly fit the bill.
But they could still do it, and here's how:

1. The House could swallow hard, pass the Senate bill as is and send it to the President to sign into law, all in a matter of days. The objections of House members--they're split on the radical new expansion of government funding to include abortion, for example--theoretically could be overcome with leadership's promises to fix their objections with subsequent legislation.
   
2. Under a process known as "reconciliation," changes could be made to sections of the bill that affect taxes and government spending. Those changes could pass the Senate with a majority of just 51 senators, rather than a 60-vote majority. 

If you can't follow the technical stuff, don't worry--neither can many within Congress. What Members of Congress can understand, however, is when a constituent like you calls and says, "Vote NO on healthcare overhaul."
It's that simple.

To make your voice heard--and apparently for some legislators, you have to use a megaphone--just TELEPHONE the offices of your two U.S. Senators, and your U.S. House member. Give your name and address, and tell the lawmakers' staff persons that you wish to be recorded as "opposed to the health care legislation."

• You can reach the offices of any member of Congress at 202-224-3121 or find their numbers here.
• To view a pro-life scorecard showing how your U.S. Representative has voted on key pro-life issues during the current Congress, click here; for votes of your Senators, click here.
• To view or download a letter explaining six major abortion-related problems with the Senate-passed bill, click here.
  

Healthcare legislation: Okay, now what?

Congressional leadership, stunned by the Massachussets referendum against radical healthcare overhaul legislation, doesn't seem to know where to turn next legislatively. Here's a hint:

• Practice bipartisanship, transparency and focus on the good of the country rather than ramming radical socialistic policies down our throats through closed-door deal-making and pork-barrel political bribes.
• Provide a targeted safety net for poor patients instead of penalizing the rest of the country who can afford and are happy with their plans.
• Keep government money out of abortions rather than subsidizing abortion and mandating that every region offer abortion.
  
• Protect the conscience rights of medical professionals instead of forcing them to choose between following moral standards or obeying mandates to participate in unethical practices like abortion on demand.
• Preserve the patient-physician relationship and decision-making rather than creating massive new bureaucracies and mandating care and resource decisions.
• Institute malpractice reform rather than allowing unjustified and excessive medical malpractice lawsuits to drive good doctors out of medicine.

Many of these principles are embodied in the "Empowering Patients First Act," a bill introduced by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA 6th).
The 16,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA, www.cmda.org), the nation's largest association of faith-based physicians, has voiced support for the conscience-protecting provisions of that bill. CMA contends that the protections are needed to avoid a potentially catastrophic loss of faith-based healthcare on which millions of poor patients depend.
More from CMA's news release:

In a letter sent to Rep. Price regarding the bill (HR 3400), CMA CEO Dr. David Stevens noted, "Lawmakers must realize that threatening or minimizing conscience protections holds the potential to create a catastrophic shortage of healthcare access, especially for poor patients. Our national polling (available online at www.Freedom2Care.org) reveals that 95 percent of faith-based physicians are prepared to leave medicine altogether rather than violate their conscientiously held ethical convictions."

Dr. Stevens wrote, "As you know, President Obama has announced plans to rescind the relatively new federal provider conscience regulation, which also provides for such a reporting mechanism. It is imperative, therefore, to enact legislation that protects conscience rights from the whims of any administration that might minimize the opportunity to address civil rights violations related to conscience."

Dr. Stevens thanked Rep. Price for recognizing the need for strong, true and broad conscience protections.

"The bill [Sec. 106 Part (d) of HR 3400] also provides a critical component of conscience protections. Many healthcare professionals encounter pressure to violate ethical codes on many issues besides abortion. HR 3400 addresses this reality by offering appropriately broad conscientious protection 'to accommodate the conscientious objection of a purchaser or an individual or institutional health care provider when a procedure is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of such purchaser or provider.'"

In his letter, Dr. Stevens also noted the benefit of designating the Office of Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as a reporting outlet for healthcare professionals experiencing discrimination for their conscientious stance on ethical issues.

"Besides protecting any individual or institutional health care entity from discrimination 'on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions,' the bill also provides the crucial implementation avenue needed to make such protection effective."