Whistle-blower lawsuit against Planned Parenthood unsealed

This just in about Planned Parenthood, a slick and sleazy billion-dollar enterprise that each year rakes in hundreds of millions in taxpayer-funded federal grants and performs hundreds of thousands abortions:

A formerly sealed federal “whistle-blower” suit against Planned Parenthood finally has been made public. The suit against a Texas Planned Parenthood affiliate was filed in 2009 by the Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of former Clinic Director Abby Johnson.

The complaint states, “At a late 2008/early 2009 monthly management meeting, Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, through Members of Planned Parenthood’s Key Management Team, openly acknowledged to Ms. Johnson and others attending this management meeting that Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast had, in fact, been fraudulently billing the Texas WHP program for non-reimbursable products and services but would hope not to get caught and would hide these facts from the United States, the State of Texas, and/or their respective fiscal intermediaries and not provide any reimbursement of monies received…”

According to this statement by ADF, the Texas affiliate now known as Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, “filed at least 87,075 false, fraudulent, or ineligible claims with the Texas Women’s Health Program.  As a result, Planned Parenthood wrongfully received and retained reimbursements totaling more than $5.7 million.”

Logical extension of abortion: Medical "ethicists" now propose killing born babies

The debate over partial-birth abortion highlighted an inconvenient truth: only a legal technicality and a very short difference of distance in the birth canal separated a late-term, partially born aborted baby from a baby allowed to live.
Some so-called medical ethicists now are lobbying to stomp right over such technical differences and extend the logic of abortion to its natural conclusion--killing babies already born.
Here's the abstract on a shocking paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, a publication of the respectable British Medical Journal:

PAPER
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
Alberto Giubilini, Francesca Minerva
ABSTRACT
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

In a free society, you can't stop people from thinking horrible thoughts and developing deadly ideas. But when the idea of killing born babies rises to the level of publication in a credible medical journal, it's time to sound the alarm.
Nazi comparisons may be overused, but the German historical record suggests at least a similar start. Hitler did not originate the idea of euthanizing the sick, elderly, mentally challenged and child "bed-wetters." The idea came first from academic and scientific elite--including members of the medical community. Gradually the shock diminished, acceptance grew and finally the government adopted it as a social policy.
Such a swift and lethal moral decline can only happen in a society where objective, absolute morality--such as the life-honoring principles of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures--is exchanged for relative ethics resting on little more than pragmatism and personal power or preference. Many rejoice at such "liberating" moral freedom, gladly casting off the shackles of objective moral codes. But then one day the fickle god of pragmatism and preference imperils their own welfare and suddenly freedom looks more like fascism.

Faith-based institutions face millions in fines for conscientiously opposing Obamacare mandate: Congressional report

The information below advanced by the U.S. House and Energy Committee illustrates the serious impact of the Obamacare contraception mandate will have on faith-based institutions--and why the mandate violates the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the Constitution.
Such draconian penalties will not only redirect faith-based funding away from the individuals organizations help; the penalties can ultimately force many faith-based organizations to cease existing. The result: a massive increase in the tax burden for the nation and more dependence on the state, dramatically increasing the size and scope of government.

Hidden in the Health Care Law
Obamacare Mandate Could Mean Steep Fines for Employers who Freely Exercise Their Religion
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” –First Amendment
The First Amendment ensures that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the exercise of religion. These protections have been reaffirmed by Congress and upheld by the courts throughout the history of our nation. However, a recent regulation imposed by the Obama administration turns that history on its head by requiring organizations, including religious organizations, to procure and pay for services that violate their religious and moral beliefs. The mandate sparked an outcry from across the ideological spectrum, and in response, the administration developed what it describes as an "accommodation" for religious employers. But leading voices continue to object to this policy. The president's health care law is not just a series of mandates, but also corresponding punishments for individuals or employers that do not comply with the litany of new rules. So what happens if employers adhere to their religious beliefs and moral convictions and choose not to provide coverage that violates their conscience?
Even with the Obama administration’s so called “accommodation,” employers could face a steep fine if they fail to comply with the mandate. According to a recent Congressional Research Service report requested by the House Energy and Commerce Committee,  “A group health plan that fails to comply with the pertinent requirements in the IRC may be subject to a tax of $100 for each day in the noncompliance period with respect to each individual to whom such failure relates.”
Consequently, for example, if a self-insured religious charity or hospital with 100 employees chooses to exercise its religious rights instead of complying with the Obamacare mandate, it could be subject to a $3.65 million annual fine.
Implementing a federal mandate that violates the conscience of an individual or organization, regardless of their religious affiliation or organizational purpose, is in direct violation with the First Amendment. Imposing a fine on these individuals pours salt in the wound.

Why the Dutch pro-life minority can't rule out their untimely death at the hands of the majority

In an article entitled, "Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Rick Santorum’s bogus statistics," Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler relies on technical Dutch definitions in too hastily dismissing Rick Santorum's comments on the euthanasia fears of elderly Dutch

"Man may not make a decision to end [my] life"

While conducting euthanasia research in the Netherlands, I learned first hand how the Dutch disguise death by doctors. The Remmelink report cited by Kessler actually revealed that while doctors used lethal injection to euthanize 949 patients a year without the patients' consent (clearly involuntary euthanasia), they also ended the lives of over 20,000 patients by "opioid overdose intending death" without the patients' consent (not defined as involuntary euthanasia but yielding the same deadly result for non-consenting patients).[i]

In the Netherlands, I interviewed officials of the 70,000-member Dutch Patients Organization (Nederlandse Patienten Vereniging), which defends patient rights. The organization recognized a need to publish for concerned patients guidance documents (pictured at left) that read, "Under no circumstances may a treatment be given with the intention of ending my life, because I believe that man may not make a decision to end life."

The minority of Dutch who oppose euthanasia have good reason to feel vulnerable to an unsolicited death at the hands of the majority.

---

[i] van der Maas PJ, van der Wal G, Haverkate I, et al. Euthanasia physician-assisted suicide and other medical practices involving the end of life in the Netherlands 1990-1995. N Engl J Med 1996;335:1699–1705.

House hearing highlights bill to ban transporting minors for abortions

Today, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing on the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), H.R. 2299. 

More than three-quarters of Americans believe that parents should be involved before their  children have an abortion and more than 80 percent believe that an individual should not be able to take a minor across state lines for an abortion without her parents' knowledge.

The CIANA bill would prohibit taking minors interstate for abortion to evade parental involvement laws.

The bill prohibits knowingly taking a minor across state lines with the intent of obtaining an abortion, if this action evades a parental involvement law in the minor's home state. It also allows parents who suffer harm to sue for damages. These provisions do not apply when the abortion is necessary to save the girl's life or when the transporting individual reasonably believes that the parental involvement law was satisfied because the parents had given consent or been notified or a court waived those requirements.

The bill also requires an abortionist to notify a parent at least 24 hours before performing an abortion on an out-of-state minor. Notice may be provided by an agent of the abortion provider and constructive notice is permissible if actual notice is impossible. These provisions do not apply when the abortionist complies with a parental involvement law in the state where the abortion occurs; documentation reasonably shows that a home-state court has authorized the abortion; the minor declares that she is a victim of sexual or physical abuse or of neglect (but the abortionist must still notify appropriate authorities before performing the abortion); or the abortion is necessary to save the girl's life, (the abortionist must still notify the parents within 24 hours after the abortion).

Witness testimony and video clips of the hearing can be found below.

Witness Written Testimony

1. Professor Teresa Collett, Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas School of Law  (Republican-invited witness)
2. The Very Reverend Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, President and Dean, Episcopal Divinity School (Democrat-invited witness)
3. Dr. Michael New, Department of Social Sciences, University of Michigan - Dearborn (Republican-invited witness)

Video Clips

• Full Video of the hearing can be found here
• Rep. Trent Franks Question of Constitutionality of CIANA to Professor Collett
• Rep. Trent Franks Question of Abortion Rates in States with Parental Involvement Laws
• Rep. Jerry Nadler Question on Life of the Mother Exception in CIANA
• Rep. Jim Jordan Question to Dr. New and Professor Collett
• Rep. Steve King Questions to Rev. Hancock Ragsdale and Professor Collett
• Rep. Bobby Scott Questions to Professor Collett