President Obama's Food and Drug Administration has authorized StemCells, Inc. to use brain tissue from the remains of unborn children killed through abortion for clinical trials with more than a dozen patients to determine the effect on age-related macular degeneration of the eye.
Separately, President Obama's Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has OKd the use of aborted babies to produce artificial flavor enhancers for PepsiCo products.
For background, read Obama Wins Ruling: Embryos will be Destroyed
-- From "Market Watch" (Wall Street Journal) 3/20/12
StemCells, Inc. is engaged in the research, development, and commercialization of cell-based therapeutics and tools for use in stem cell-based research and drug discovery. . . .
The Company is also conducting a Phase I/II clinical trial in chronic spinal cord injury in Switzerland and has received authorization from the FDA to initiate a Phase I/II clinical trial in dry age-related macular degeneration (AMD). In addition, the Company is pursuing preclinical studies of its HuCNS-SC cells in Alzheimer's disease. StemCells also markets stem cell research products, including media and reagents, under the SC Proven(R) brand.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "FDA permits use of fetal brain tissue in lab experiments" by John-Henry Westen, LifeSiteNews.com 3/16/12
The Food and Drug Administration has approved experiments using brain tissue from aborted unborn babies to treat macular degeneration. StemCells Inc. will inject fetal brain stem cells into the eyes of up to 16 patients to study the cells’ effect on vision.
In its press release announcing the clinical trial, StemCells Inc. was careful to refer to the fetal brain material as “purified human neural stem cell product” or HuCNS-SC cells, rather than “fresh human fetal brain tissue,” a description which can be found elsewhere on its website.
“StemCells Inc. is not using embryonic stem cells. A five-day-old human being at the embryonic stage does not have a brain, but a fetus at 10 or 20 weeks of development with visible fingers, toes and ears has a functioning brain,” said MCCL [Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life] Executive Director Scott Fischbach. “Developing human beings in the womb are treated simply as raw material for laboratory experimentation by StemCells Inc. and other companies seeking to monetize aborted unborn children.”
The misleadingly-named Birth Defects Research Laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle is known within the research community as a top government distributor of fetal tissue. The lab has been sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for over four decades, according to a report in WORLD Magazine. The Puget Sound Business Journal stated that the lab “in 2009 filled more than 4,400 requests for fetal tissue and cell lines.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Obama Admin OKs Using Aborted Babies’ Brains in Lab Tests" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 3/16/12
Dr. David Prentice, an internationally recognized expert on stem cells and cloning, cites trials in which fetal stem cells have been used unsuccessfully to treat Parkinson’s disease. The New York Times called the outcome of a 2001 study “devastating” after “the patients writhed and jerked uncontrollably.” Another large clinical trial published in 2003 showed similar results.
“The use of morally illicit material in the biomedical industry violates the ‘do no harm’ principle that has governed the practice of medicine for millennia,” Fischbach said. “Adult stem cells offer the ethical and efficacious alternative. Unborn babies deserve dignity, not dissection and destruction.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "SEC Rules for PepsiCo’s Use of Aborted Fetal Cells" by Dave Bohon, The New American 3/8/12
As reported last year in The New American, the [PepsiCo] shareholders had filed a resolution with the SEC after Pepsi ignored tens of thousands of concerned pro-life individuals who had expressed their disgust and opposition to its contracting with Senomyx, a biotech company that tests its food additive products using a process that includes fetal cells from aborted babies.
In a decision delivered by letter February 28, the SEC said that Pepsi’s research and development agreement with Senomyx, which includes the use of aborted fetal remains in flavor enhancement research, falls under “ordinary business operations” for the soft drink company. According to LifeSiteNews.com, the SEC decision came in response to a 36-page document submitted by Pepsi through its attorneys in January 2012. “In that filing, PepsiCo pleaded with the SEC to reject the shareholders’ resolution filed in October 2011 that the company ‘adopt a corporate policy that recognizes human rights and employs ethical standards which do not involve using the remains of aborted human beings in both private and collaborative research and development agreements,’” reported the pro-life news site.
Debi Vinnedge of Children of God for Life, which had originally exposed the relationship between Pepsi and Senomyx, said that she was “appalled by the apathy and insensitivity” of PepsiCo and the Obama administration’s SEC. “We’re not talking about what kind of pencils PepsiCo wants to use,” she said in a statement. “We are talking about exploiting the remains of an aborted child for profit. Using human embryonic kidney to produce flavor enhancers for their beverages is a far cry from routine operations!”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Stem Cell Science Advances Without Embryos and see the list of related previous articles at the bottom of this posting.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
Gay-friendly Catholic School Criticized by Lesbian
Once again demonstrating that the goal of the Gay Agenda is destruction of the Church, when an Ontario Catholic school distributed an anti-bullying pamphlet encouraging tolerance of homosexual behavior, a lesbian parent of one student started a ground-swell movement to force the school toward full acceptance and glorification of homosexuality.
Also read previous article: Archdiocese of Boston Prints Apology to Homosexuals
-- From "Pamphlet meant to promote equality being criticized for description of homosexuality" posted at Global Toronto 3/12/12
Parents at a Catholic School in Bowmanville are up in arms after a pamphlet that was meant to promote equality among different races and sexual orientations is being criticized as doing the opposite.
The pamphlet titled “The Colour of Equity,” was sent to teachers by the Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board, in an effort to stop bullying and provide teachers with ways to promote equality in the classroom.
Some members of the community though are criticizing the pamphlet for its description of homosexuality. Though the pamphlet does denounce the bullying and targeting of homosexuals, it calls the sexual preference “objectively disordered.”
From "Gay parents take issue with how Catholic schools handle homophobia" by Louise Brown, Education Reporter, Toronto Star 3/11/12
As a Catholic, a mom and a lesbian, Ann Tesluk . . . mother of two children at St. Joseph’s Catholic Elementary School was delighted when the school board sent out a lively 20-page equity blueprint last month to help teachers tackle all kinds of discrimination, from race and religion to disability and sexual orientation.
Then she read the fine print.
It felt like “stepping back into the Dark Ages.”
There, in the otherwise upbeat chapter “Rainbow is for Sexual Orientation,” which urges teachers to treat homophobic language as harshly as racial slurs and encourages the use of gay guest speakers and the reading of gay-positive texts, sat an excerpt from the Catholic Church’s catechism #2358.
To Tesluk, who has a son in Grade 3 and a daughter in Grade 6, such talk “creates an unsafe learning environment. We know gay students are being bullied to death.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Lesbian with kids in Catholic school demands removal of Catechism quote on homosexuality" by Patrick B. Craine, LifeSiteNews.com 3/16/12
The pamphlet in question, however, is controversial from more than one perspective. While quoting the Catechism that the homosexual inclination is “objectively disordered”, the pamphlet also misrepresents Catholic teaching in numerous ways. The pamphlet calls on schools to highlight homosexual role models and familiarize students with terms like “LGBTQQ” and “two-spirited.” It indicates that Canada legalized same-sex “marriage” in 2005 without mentioning that the Church opposes such unions.
Greg Reeves, director of education for the Peterborough Victoria Northumberland Clarington Catholic District School Board (PVNCCDSB), told LifeSiteNews that they have had enough complaints about the pamphlet, called The Colour of Equity, to give the wording a “relook” to see if they can explain the Church’s teaching better.
Reeves said the complaints are largely a result of confusion over the Church’s teaching, saying that the Catechism’s “phraseology is old.”
“As it is right now, it is derogatory, patronizing and discriminatory, not to mention lacking in scientific evidence,” [Tesluk] says. “Any child who reads this will be faced, at minimum, with a negative attitude towards homosexuality,” she continues. “Isn’t this what we are trying to prevent? How can we allow any school in Ontario to teach this to our children?”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read 'Gay Rights' Winning, Loss of Religious Liberty Documented - Washington Post writer demonstrates it's a "zero sum" game: Winning homosexual 'rights' means Christians must lose freedom of religion.
Also read previous article: Archdiocese of Boston Prints Apology to Homosexuals
-- From "Pamphlet meant to promote equality being criticized for description of homosexuality" posted at Global Toronto 3/12/12
Parents at a Catholic School in Bowmanville are up in arms after a pamphlet that was meant to promote equality among different races and sexual orientations is being criticized as doing the opposite.
The pamphlet titled “The Colour of Equity,” was sent to teachers by the Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board, in an effort to stop bullying and provide teachers with ways to promote equality in the classroom.
Some members of the community though are criticizing the pamphlet for its description of homosexuality. Though the pamphlet does denounce the bullying and targeting of homosexuals, it calls the sexual preference “objectively disordered.”
“The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Gay parents take issue with how Catholic schools handle homophobia" by Louise Brown, Education Reporter, Toronto Star 3/11/12
As a Catholic, a mom and a lesbian, Ann Tesluk . . . mother of two children at St. Joseph’s Catholic Elementary School was delighted when the school board sent out a lively 20-page equity blueprint last month to help teachers tackle all kinds of discrimination, from race and religion to disability and sexual orientation.
Then she read the fine print.
It felt like “stepping back into the Dark Ages.”
There, in the otherwise upbeat chapter “Rainbow is for Sexual Orientation,” which urges teachers to treat homophobic language as harshly as racial slurs and encourages the use of gay guest speakers and the reading of gay-positive texts, sat an excerpt from the Catholic Church’s catechism #2358.
To Tesluk, who has a son in Grade 3 and a daughter in Grade 6, such talk “creates an unsafe learning environment. We know gay students are being bullied to death.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Lesbian with kids in Catholic school demands removal of Catechism quote on homosexuality" by Patrick B. Craine, LifeSiteNews.com 3/16/12
The pamphlet in question, however, is controversial from more than one perspective. While quoting the Catechism that the homosexual inclination is “objectively disordered”, the pamphlet also misrepresents Catholic teaching in numerous ways. The pamphlet calls on schools to highlight homosexual role models and familiarize students with terms like “LGBTQQ” and “two-spirited.” It indicates that Canada legalized same-sex “marriage” in 2005 without mentioning that the Church opposes such unions.
Greg Reeves, director of education for the Peterborough Victoria Northumberland Clarington Catholic District School Board (PVNCCDSB), told LifeSiteNews that they have had enough complaints about the pamphlet, called The Colour of Equity, to give the wording a “relook” to see if they can explain the Church’s teaching better.
Reeves said the complaints are largely a result of confusion over the Church’s teaching, saying that the Catechism’s “phraseology is old.”
“As it is right now, it is derogatory, patronizing and discriminatory, not to mention lacking in scientific evidence,” [Tesluk] says. “Any child who reads this will be faced, at minimum, with a negative attitude towards homosexuality,” she continues. “Isn’t this what we are trying to prevent? How can we allow any school in Ontario to teach this to our children?”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read 'Gay Rights' Winning, Loss of Religious Liberty Documented - Washington Post writer demonstrates it's a "zero sum" game: Winning homosexual 'rights' means Christians must lose freedom of religion.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Obama Enables Pornographers, Says Santorum
Presidential candidate Rick Santorum says that President Obama's refusal to enforce obscenity and anti-Internet pornography laws has resulted in a pandemic that harms children. In response, the Obama-empowered pornography industry, which accounts for over 90% of Internet trade, is scoffing at Santorum, telling him to butt out of their gold mine.
For background, click headlines below:
Pornography Unchecked by Obama Administration
Obama Ignores Additional Pornography Internet Domain
Children are Sexual Beings, Says White House - Masturbation OK
Obama Education Adviser Recommends Pornography to Children
Kids Choose Porn as Better Teacher than School
Boston Teen Girls Mimic Porn Group Sex: Study
Orgasm Live Demo in College Classroom: Chicago
Children's On-line Sex Game
-- From "Santorum: Obama weak on porn prosecutions" by Seung Min Kim, Politico 3/18/12
On his website, Santorum says he’s “concerned about the widespread distribution of illegal obscene pornography” and accuses the current Justice Department of seeming to “favor pornographers over children and families.”
Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator and social conservative, defended his comments, insisting on CNN's "State of the Union" that prosecution of such cases was much more rigorous under the Bush administration. He provided no facts or statistics to back up his claim.
“My conclusion is, they have not put a priority on prosecuting these cases and in doing so, they are exposing children to tremendous amount of harm,” Santorum said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Santorum: Obama DOJ favors 'pornographers over children'" by Jonathan Easley, The Hill 3/15/12
The former Pennsylvania senator argues that "current federal 'obscenity' laws prohibit distribution of hardcore [obscene] pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier."
“The Obama administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws,” the statement read in part. “While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum administration.”
“A wealth of research is now available demonstrating that pornography causes profound brain changes in both children and adults, resulting in widespread negative consequences,” the statement noted. “Addiction to pornography is now common for adults and even for some children. The average age of first exposure to hardcore Internet pornography is now 11. Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking.”
[Santorum] hasn't made any notable mention of the pornography issue on the campaign trail, and it's one of several position papers he's given on the issue section of his campaign website.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Rick Santorum’s war against pornography: Adult film stars, production companies rail against GOPer" by Aliyah Shahid, New York Daily News 3/17/12
Film production company execs and XXX actors are railing against the Republican presidential candidate's recent call to ban hardcore pornography, calling it an infringement on free speech, a threat to their livelihood, and a pathetic ploy to get votes.
Pornography in America is an obscene "pandemic," Santorum's website says. "It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."
Joanna Angel, who has appeared in numerous adult videos and is the owner of XXX-film production company Burning Angel Entertainment, called Santorum's proposal "infuriating."
Ryan Keely, an adult film actress and sex advice columnist, said Santorum's declared war on smut "is clearly an attempt to excite his conservative base. There is no way pornography will be shut down."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Rick Santorum vows to end 'pandemic of pornography.' Could he prevail?" by Patrik Jonsson, Staff Writer, Christian Science Monitor 3/17/12
. . . despite pornography's ubiquity, there's no reason US attorneys can't step up prosecutions of people who flout anti-obscenity laws, especially against domestic purveyors. As recently as 2006 a federal jury found an Arizona company guilty of breaking obscenity laws for distributing hardcore pornography across state lines. The FBI announced 38 child pornography-related guilty verdicts or pleas this month alone.
“In most parts of the country, a lot of pornography on the Internet would plausibly be seen as obscene,” UCLA constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh told the Daily Caller, which publicized the overlooked Santorum position paper this week. “You can’t prosecute them all … but you can find certain types of pornography that are sufficiently unpopular” for easy convictions, he told the conservative news site
And while Santorum's criticism of the Obama administration for failing to bring more obscenity cases to court may or may not be fair, the administration's tack, legal scholars say, follows a general pattern dating back to at least 2000, a point where, because of liberalized attitudes wrought by the Internet, it became clear to many prosecutors that an all-out war on pornography that depicts consensual sex would be difficult to win.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Raquel Welch: the ‘era of porn’ has ‘annihilated’ men" by Kathleen Gilbert, LifeSiteNews.com 3/13/12
As one of America’s most revered sex symbols . . . [Raquel Welch] told Men’s Health Magazine in an interview posted online March 8 that today’s sex-saturated culture had sapped the meaning out of sex, and damaged countless men through the pornography industry, which she called “an exploitation of the poor male’s libidos.”
“It’s just dehumanizing. And I have to honestly say, I think this era of porn is at least partially responsible for it,” Welch said of rampant sexual addiction. “Where is the anticipation and the personalization? It’s all pre-fab now. You have these images coming at you unannounced and unsolicited. It just gets to be so plastic and phony to me.
“I just imagine them sitting in front of their computers, completely annihilated. They haven’t done anything, they don’t have a job, they barely have ambition anymore,” said the 71-year-old actress. “And it makes for laziness and a not very good sex partner. Do they know how to negotiate something that isn’t pre-fab and injected directly into their brain?”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
For background, click headlines below:
Pornography Unchecked by Obama Administration
Obama Ignores Additional Pornography Internet Domain
Children are Sexual Beings, Says White House - Masturbation OK
Obama Education Adviser Recommends Pornography to Children
Kids Choose Porn as Better Teacher than School
Boston Teen Girls Mimic Porn Group Sex: Study
Orgasm Live Demo in College Classroom: Chicago
Children's On-line Sex Game
-- From "Santorum: Obama weak on porn prosecutions" by Seung Min Kim, Politico 3/18/12
On his website, Santorum says he’s “concerned about the widespread distribution of illegal obscene pornography” and accuses the current Justice Department of seeming to “favor pornographers over children and families.”
Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator and social conservative, defended his comments, insisting on CNN's "State of the Union" that prosecution of such cases was much more rigorous under the Bush administration. He provided no facts or statistics to back up his claim.
“My conclusion is, they have not put a priority on prosecuting these cases and in doing so, they are exposing children to tremendous amount of harm,” Santorum said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Santorum: Obama DOJ favors 'pornographers over children'" by Jonathan Easley, The Hill 3/15/12
The former Pennsylvania senator argues that "current federal 'obscenity' laws prohibit distribution of hardcore [obscene] pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier."
“The Obama administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws,” the statement read in part. “While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum administration.”
“A wealth of research is now available demonstrating that pornography causes profound brain changes in both children and adults, resulting in widespread negative consequences,” the statement noted. “Addiction to pornography is now common for adults and even for some children. The average age of first exposure to hardcore Internet pornography is now 11. Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking.”
[Santorum] hasn't made any notable mention of the pornography issue on the campaign trail, and it's one of several position papers he's given on the issue section of his campaign website.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Rick Santorum’s war against pornography: Adult film stars, production companies rail against GOPer" by Aliyah Shahid, New York Daily News 3/17/12
Film production company execs and XXX actors are railing against the Republican presidential candidate's recent call to ban hardcore pornography, calling it an infringement on free speech, a threat to their livelihood, and a pathetic ploy to get votes.
Pornography in America is an obscene "pandemic," Santorum's website says. "It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."
Joanna Angel, who has appeared in numerous adult videos and is the owner of XXX-film production company Burning Angel Entertainment, called Santorum's proposal "infuriating."
Ryan Keely, an adult film actress and sex advice columnist, said Santorum's declared war on smut "is clearly an attempt to excite his conservative base. There is no way pornography will be shut down."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Rick Santorum vows to end 'pandemic of pornography.' Could he prevail?" by Patrik Jonsson, Staff Writer, Christian Science Monitor 3/17/12
. . . despite pornography's ubiquity, there's no reason US attorneys can't step up prosecutions of people who flout anti-obscenity laws, especially against domestic purveyors. As recently as 2006 a federal jury found an Arizona company guilty of breaking obscenity laws for distributing hardcore pornography across state lines. The FBI announced 38 child pornography-related guilty verdicts or pleas this month alone.
“In most parts of the country, a lot of pornography on the Internet would plausibly be seen as obscene,” UCLA constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh told the Daily Caller, which publicized the overlooked Santorum position paper this week. “You can’t prosecute them all … but you can find certain types of pornography that are sufficiently unpopular” for easy convictions, he told the conservative news site
And while Santorum's criticism of the Obama administration for failing to bring more obscenity cases to court may or may not be fair, the administration's tack, legal scholars say, follows a general pattern dating back to at least 2000, a point where, because of liberalized attitudes wrought by the Internet, it became clear to many prosecutors that an all-out war on pornography that depicts consensual sex would be difficult to win.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Raquel Welch: the ‘era of porn’ has ‘annihilated’ men" by Kathleen Gilbert, LifeSiteNews.com 3/13/12
As one of America’s most revered sex symbols . . . [Raquel Welch] told Men’s Health Magazine in an interview posted online March 8 that today’s sex-saturated culture had sapped the meaning out of sex, and damaged countless men through the pornography industry, which she called “an exploitation of the poor male’s libidos.”
“It’s just dehumanizing. And I have to honestly say, I think this era of porn is at least partially responsible for it,” Welch said of rampant sexual addiction. “Where is the anticipation and the personalization? It’s all pre-fab now. You have these images coming at you unannounced and unsolicited. It just gets to be so plastic and phony to me.
“I just imagine them sitting in front of their computers, completely annihilated. They haven’t done anything, they don’t have a job, they barely have ambition anymore,” said the 71-year-old actress. “And it makes for laziness and a not very good sex partner. Do they know how to negotiate something that isn’t pre-fab and injected directly into their brain?”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Voluntary Praying at Food Pantry Verboten by Law?
An Indiana state agency has confiscated food from a local food pantry that offers to pray with needy clients, but after action by a congressman, the USDA says it may consider allowing Indiana to restart the food supply.
-- From "USDA to discuss Indiana food bank flap with officials" by The Associated Press 3/16/12
Federal officials are reviewing whether a southern Indiana pantry violates food distribution rules by asking its clients if they want to pray.
USDA spokesman Alan Shannon says agency officials will hold a teleconference Friday with state officials on the actions of Community Provisions of Jackson County in Seymour. Food bank officials will also take part in that call.
Shannon says groups receiving food from the USDA can still engage in religious activities as long as that doesn't create a barrier to people receiving food.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Prayer Costs Indiana Food Pantry Access to Gov't Products" by Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter 3/15/12
Community Provisions of Jackson County in Seymour, Ind., a faith-based food pantry supported by local churches, can no longer provide clients with federal government commodities due to its prayer policy.
Paul Brock, director of Community Provisions since December of 1997, told The Christian Post on Wednesday that the problem began in late 2011.
"The controversy began during my Nov. 29, 2011 inspection by Gleaners Food Bank. They are the distribution site the state has chosen and they are the ones responsible to do the inspections," said Brock.
According to Gleaners, faith-based food pantries connected to the government cannot require religious services or teaching to clients of their facilities. However, Brock has argued that Community Provisions' offering of prayer are voluntary and that clients are served regardless of whether or not they agree to pray.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Feds may reverse decision to cut aid to Indiana food pantry where clients are asked to pray" by Joshua Rhett Miller, FoxNews.com 3/16/12
Paul Brock, director of Community Provisions of Jackson County, said he was "stunned" to learn that officials from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will re-examine his situation following the loss of his portion of food from The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), roughly 15 percent of his stock.
Gleaners took over administration of the federal commodities program in October. Brock has operated Community Provisions, which serves roughly 2,000 families annually, since 1997 and said he never had a problem before Gleaners became the administrator of the federal program.
Todd Young, a Republican congressman serving Indiana's 9th District, contacted state officials regarding the matter on Thursday, his spokesman told FoxNews.com.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "USDA to discuss Indiana food bank flap with officials" by The Associated Press 3/16/12
Federal officials are reviewing whether a southern Indiana pantry violates food distribution rules by asking its clients if they want to pray.
USDA spokesman Alan Shannon says agency officials will hold a teleconference Friday with state officials on the actions of Community Provisions of Jackson County in Seymour. Food bank officials will also take part in that call.
Shannon says groups receiving food from the USDA can still engage in religious activities as long as that doesn't create a barrier to people receiving food.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Prayer Costs Indiana Food Pantry Access to Gov't Products" by Michael Gryboski, Christian Post Reporter 3/15/12
Community Provisions of Jackson County in Seymour, Ind., a faith-based food pantry supported by local churches, can no longer provide clients with federal government commodities due to its prayer policy.
Paul Brock, director of Community Provisions since December of 1997, told The Christian Post on Wednesday that the problem began in late 2011.
"The controversy began during my Nov. 29, 2011 inspection by Gleaners Food Bank. They are the distribution site the state has chosen and they are the ones responsible to do the inspections," said Brock.
According to Gleaners, faith-based food pantries connected to the government cannot require religious services or teaching to clients of their facilities. However, Brock has argued that Community Provisions' offering of prayer are voluntary and that clients are served regardless of whether or not they agree to pray.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Feds may reverse decision to cut aid to Indiana food pantry where clients are asked to pray" by Joshua Rhett Miller, FoxNews.com 3/16/12
Paul Brock, director of Community Provisions of Jackson County, said he was "stunned" to learn that officials from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will re-examine his situation following the loss of his portion of food from The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), roughly 15 percent of his stock.
Gleaners took over administration of the federal commodities program in October. Brock has operated Community Provisions, which serves roughly 2,000 families annually, since 1997 and said he never had a problem before Gleaners became the administrator of the federal program.
Todd Young, a Republican congressman serving Indiana's 9th District, contacted state officials regarding the matter on Thursday, his spokesman told FoxNews.com.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Friday, March 16, 2012
NY Times Runs Anti-Catholic Ad, Not Anti-Islam Ad
The New York Times printed an ad from a Madison, Wisconsin-based atheist organization urging liberal and nominal Catholics to quit the Church, but when the Times was tested by a media watchdog with an ad suggesting the same to Muslims, the Times refused to print it.“Will it be reproductive freedom, or back to the Dark Ages? Do you choose women and their rights, or Bishops and their wrongs? Whose side are you on, anyway?”For background, read The Pope, and Obama's War on Christianity and also read Bishops Say Obama Destroying Societal Norm as well as Obama Feeds Catholics 'A Bunch of Bull'
-- Asks the ad by the Freedom from Religion Foundation
-- From "New York Times accused of Catholic bashing, double standard on religion" posted at FoxNews.com 3/15/12
. . . when Pamela Geller, a blogger and executive director of Stop Islamization of America, offered the same $39,000 for the Old Gray Lady to run an ad making a similar appeal to Muslims, the newspaper passed.
Geller said her anti-Shariah ad was designed to mimic the anti-Catholic one. In calling on Muslims to quit their religion, the ad asked “Why put up with an institution that dehumanizes women and non-Muslims … [do] you keep identifying with the ideology that threatens liberty for women and menaces freedom by slaughtering, oppressing and subjugating non-Muslims… Join those of us who put humanity above the vengeful, hateful and violent teachings of Islam’s ‘prophet.’”
Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy referred requests for comment to the letter the paper sent Geller when it declined to publish the ad.
"It is our belief that fallout from running this [anti-Islam] ad now could put US troops and civilians in the region in danger and we would like to avoid that."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "NY Times accused of anti-Catholic bigotry, cowardice" by Catholic Online 3/15/2012
The anti-Catholic ad was run without fear. . . . Although there was criticism over the nature of the ad, there were no threats of violence and no calls for crusades.
Meanwhile, Catholics have criticized the Times of promoting an anti-Catholic agenda. Bill Donahue, Catholic League president, said the Time's motivation to publish one article but not the other was the result of "either bigotry or fear and they've painted themselves into that corner."
Catholics do not have a history of attacking journalists, however militant Islamists do. At least two Muslims have been jailed for threatening media professionals and other journalists and authors have gone into hiding to avoid backlash for their criticizing Islam.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "New York Times protects Islam from criticism" by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily 3/15/12
. . . Pamela Geller of AtlasShrugs.com . . . created [the anti-Islam] ad in the same format, with the same message, only this one said, “It’s Time to Quit Islam.”
“The craven quislings at the New York Times rejected our ad,” Geller reported.
Then in an update, she said:
Bob Christie, senior vice president of corporate communications for the New York Times, just called me and advised me that they would be accepting my ad, but considering the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, now would not be a good time, as they did not want to enflame an already hot situation. They will be reconsidering it for publication in “a few months.”To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
So I said to Mr. Christie, “Isn’t this the very point of the ad? If you feared the Catholics were going to attack the New York Times building, would you have run that ad?”
Mr. Christie said, “I’m not here to discuss the anti-Catholic ad.”
I said, “But I am, it’s the exact same ad.”
He said, “No, it’s not.”
Excerpts from the full text of the NY Times ad posted at National Post:
It’s time to quit the Roman Catholic Church.
It is time to make known your dissent from the Catholic Church, in light of the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops’ ruthless campaign endangering the right to contraception. If you’re part of the Catholic Church, you’re part of the problem.
Why are you propping up the pillars of a tyrannical and autocratic, woman-hating, sex-perverting, antediluvian Old Boys Club? Why are you aiding and abetting a church that has repeatedly and publicly announced a crusade to ban contraception, abortion and sterilization, and to deny the right of all women everywhere, Catholic or not, to decide whether and when to become mothers? When it comes to reproductive freedom, the Roman Catholic Church is Public Enemy Number One. Think of the acute misery, poverty, needless suffering, unwanted pregnancies, social evils and deaths that can be laid directly at the door of the Church’s antiquated doctrine that birth control is a sin and must be outlawed.
You’re better than your church. So why? Why continue to attend Mass? Tithe? Why dutifully sacrifice to send your children to parochial schools so they can be brainwashed into the next generation of myrmidons (and, potentially, become the next Church victims)? For that matter, why have you put up with an institution that won’t put up with women priests, that excludes half of humanity?
To read the entire text of the anti-Catholic ad, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
IL Christian Tea Party Counters Establishment GOP
As the Illinois Republican primary election approaches (March 20th), virtually every major Republican officeholder in the state has endorsed Mitt Romney for president, yet polls show most voters will choose either Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich over Romney.
The battle of the Illinois conservative grass roots vs. the Illinois GOP rages on!
For background, read Proved: Tea Party Movement is Christian and also read Tea Party Nationwide Campaign Against Illinois Liberal Republican Senator Mark Kirk
-- From "All eyes on Illinois after Santorum wins in Alabama, Mississippi" by Abdon M. Pallasch, Political Reporter, Chicago Sun-Times 3/13/12
“All eyes are going to turn to Illinois,” said Santorum’s Illinois Chairman, former state Rep. Al Salvi. “I think in Mississippi and Alabama, the exit polls showed women came out for Rick Santorum. I think he’s the beneficiary of President Obama’s big mistake in mandating that private employers pay for birth control.”
Much of Illinois’ Republican establishment has signed on to front-runner Mitt Romney’s campaign. Sen. Mark Kirk, state Treasurer Dan Rutherford and state GOP Chairman Patrick Brady are all on board.
In roughly half the states so far in primaries or caucuses, the conservative wing of the Republican Party is defying the establishment and opting for Santorum’s more-conservative-on-social-issues message.
Santorum noted he had “all the establishment” against him in Mississippi and won anyway.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Suburbs are prime battleground for GOP presidential primary" by Kerry Lester, Daily Herald 3/4/12
Republican Congressman Aaron Schock of Peoria, an early Romney backer, reiterated the campaign's focus on the economy.
Romney will be looking for independent, swing votes in the suburbs, especially among women, who may disagree with the conservative social policies of Santorum.
Santorum's Illinois political director, Jon Zahm, formerly of Batavia, said he expects the campaign to do well in towns on the Missouri and Iowa borders, but he also sees the suburbs as a stronghold. . . . He describes the campaign as “bottom up” with a grass-roots focus and the help of Tea Party groups and anti-abortion groups.
The Gingrich campaign says much of its support lies in suburban Tea Party groups, but concedes those numbers can be hard to gauge.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Romney, Santorum Continue Long-Running IL Republican Battle over Social Issues" by Political Editor Mike Flannery, FOX Chicago News 3/12/12
“If we allow abortion to define a good Republican from a bad Republican, we will be the party of the perpetual minority,” Dan Rutherford said. “If we allow positions in regard to gay rights and in regards to guns to define good from bad, we will be the party of the perpetual minority.”
The executive director of Santorum's Illinois campaign said he could not disagree more strongly.
“I think it would be a dereliction of duty to not stand on those core principles. You know, and as for traditional marriage, I think that's the backbone of society. You know, if we had only gay marriage, we wouldn't be able to further have children,” Illinois Santorum Campaign’s Jon Zahm said. “I'm afraid that for every person that the treasurer [Rutherford] tries to reach out for that doesn't believe in those values, we may lose somebody who believes in those core principles. So I think that's the wrong approach.”
Rutherford's argument was that Illinois Republicans should focus on last year's 67 percent increase in the state income tax on individuals, instead of social issues. Santorum supporters said they're all for clobbering the Democrats who enacted that big tax increase, in addition to stressing the social issues that they point out are part of the Republican platform at the state and national level.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Evangelical voters prefer Romney’s rivals" by Katrina Trinko, National Review 3/13/12
. . . On average, there is a 19-point difference between Romney’s support among non-evangelicals and his support among evangelicals in Republican primaries, according to ABC News’s survey of primary states with exit- or entrance-polling data available.
Bob Vander Plaats, a prominent social-conservative activist in Iowa and head of the Family Leader, also highlights Romney’s record in Massachusetts. “We hear today that’s he pro-life, but we also hear that when he was governor he put in $50 co-pay abortions in the state,” he says. “We hear today that God’s design for marriage [is] one man, one woman, yet he basically presided over same-sex marriage in the state.”
“There’s a trust gap,” Vander Plaats adds. “I think a lot of us conservatives feel that he will morph into who you want him to be depending on which campaign he’s in.”
Gary Bauer, president of American Values . . . agrees that some may be concerned that Romney’s position switches aren’t authentic. However, he argues that the larger problem Romney faces is that even voters who are willing to believe he has sincerely changed his views are wary of his willingness to passionately fight on those issues. Evangelicals, Bauer observes, are doubtful that values issues “would play much of a role in the expenditure of political capital or energy in his administration.”
There are signs, too, that evangelicals aren’t so much opposed to a Romney presidency as they simply prefer his rivals.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Illinois primary pits leaders vs. Tea Party (GOP Reps. Adam Kinzinger and Don Manzullo face off)
The battle of the Illinois conservative grass roots vs. the Illinois GOP rages on!
For background, read Proved: Tea Party Movement is Christian and also read Tea Party Nationwide Campaign Against Illinois Liberal Republican Senator Mark Kirk
-- From "All eyes on Illinois after Santorum wins in Alabama, Mississippi" by Abdon M. Pallasch, Political Reporter, Chicago Sun-Times 3/13/12
“All eyes are going to turn to Illinois,” said Santorum’s Illinois Chairman, former state Rep. Al Salvi. “I think in Mississippi and Alabama, the exit polls showed women came out for Rick Santorum. I think he’s the beneficiary of President Obama’s big mistake in mandating that private employers pay for birth control.”
Much of Illinois’ Republican establishment has signed on to front-runner Mitt Romney’s campaign. Sen. Mark Kirk, state Treasurer Dan Rutherford and state GOP Chairman Patrick Brady are all on board.
In roughly half the states so far in primaries or caucuses, the conservative wing of the Republican Party is defying the establishment and opting for Santorum’s more-conservative-on-social-issues message.
Santorum noted he had “all the establishment” against him in Mississippi and won anyway.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Suburbs are prime battleground for GOP presidential primary" by Kerry Lester, Daily Herald 3/4/12
Republican Congressman Aaron Schock of Peoria, an early Romney backer, reiterated the campaign's focus on the economy.
Romney will be looking for independent, swing votes in the suburbs, especially among women, who may disagree with the conservative social policies of Santorum.
Santorum's Illinois political director, Jon Zahm, formerly of Batavia, said he expects the campaign to do well in towns on the Missouri and Iowa borders, but he also sees the suburbs as a stronghold. . . . He describes the campaign as “bottom up” with a grass-roots focus and the help of Tea Party groups and anti-abortion groups.
The Gingrich campaign says much of its support lies in suburban Tea Party groups, but concedes those numbers can be hard to gauge.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Romney, Santorum Continue Long-Running IL Republican Battle over Social Issues" by Political Editor Mike Flannery, FOX Chicago News 3/12/12
“If we allow abortion to define a good Republican from a bad Republican, we will be the party of the perpetual minority,” Dan Rutherford said. “If we allow positions in regard to gay rights and in regards to guns to define good from bad, we will be the party of the perpetual minority.”
The executive director of Santorum's Illinois campaign said he could not disagree more strongly.
“I think it would be a dereliction of duty to not stand on those core principles. You know, and as for traditional marriage, I think that's the backbone of society. You know, if we had only gay marriage, we wouldn't be able to further have children,” Illinois Santorum Campaign’s Jon Zahm said. “I'm afraid that for every person that the treasurer [Rutherford] tries to reach out for that doesn't believe in those values, we may lose somebody who believes in those core principles. So I think that's the wrong approach.”
Rutherford's argument was that Illinois Republicans should focus on last year's 67 percent increase in the state income tax on individuals, instead of social issues. Santorum supporters said they're all for clobbering the Democrats who enacted that big tax increase, in addition to stressing the social issues that they point out are part of the Republican platform at the state and national level.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Evangelical voters prefer Romney’s rivals" by Katrina Trinko, National Review 3/13/12
. . . On average, there is a 19-point difference between Romney’s support among non-evangelicals and his support among evangelicals in Republican primaries, according to ABC News’s survey of primary states with exit- or entrance-polling data available.
Bob Vander Plaats, a prominent social-conservative activist in Iowa and head of the Family Leader, also highlights Romney’s record in Massachusetts. “We hear today that’s he pro-life, but we also hear that when he was governor he put in $50 co-pay abortions in the state,” he says. “We hear today that God’s design for marriage [is] one man, one woman, yet he basically presided over same-sex marriage in the state.”
“There’s a trust gap,” Vander Plaats adds. “I think a lot of us conservatives feel that he will morph into who you want him to be depending on which campaign he’s in.”
Gary Bauer, president of American Values . . . agrees that some may be concerned that Romney’s position switches aren’t authentic. However, he argues that the larger problem Romney faces is that even voters who are willing to believe he has sincerely changed his views are wary of his willingness to passionately fight on those issues. Evangelicals, Bauer observes, are doubtful that values issues “would play much of a role in the expenditure of political capital or energy in his administration.”
There are signs, too, that evangelicals aren’t so much opposed to a Romney presidency as they simply prefer his rivals.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Illinois primary pits leaders vs. Tea Party (GOP Reps. Adam Kinzinger and Don Manzullo face off)
Most Americans Oppose Obama's War on Christianity
New surveys by The Wall Street Journal/NBC News and the New York Times/CBS News both indicate that the majority of Americans do not favor the ObamaCare mandates requiring employers to provide free contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization for female employees.
For background, read The Pope, and Obama's War on Christianity and also read Obama's War on Christianity: Sen. Rubio Fires Back as well as Bishops Say Obama Destroying Societal Norm
-- From "Birth-Control Rule Debate Intensifying" by Gerald F. Seib, Wall Street Journal 3/13/12
[The Journal/NBC News survey] showed women by 53% to 38% said religiously affiliated employers should be able to opt out of the birth-control rule that requires employers, including religious institutions, to offer contraceptive drugs free of charge. Men favored a religious opt-out by a slightly wider margin.
. . . when asked whether the government should mandate that Roman Catholic and other religiously affiliated hospitals and colleges offer birth control paid for by the institutions' insurance companies—as required by the [ObamaCare] rule—Americans were opposed by 45% to 38%. Women split evenly, with 40% in favor and 40% opposed.
When Journal/NBC pollsters asked more specifically whether the government should require religious institutions to provide such contraception coverage—including the morning-after pill, which would be covered under the rule—opposition rose further. Americans overall were opposed 49% to 34%, and women were opposed by 46% to 35%.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "NYT Poll: Majority of Americans Say Employers Should Be Able to Opt Out of Contraception Mandate" by Fred Lucas, CNSNews.com 3/13/12
A significant majority – 57 percent -- of Americans believe religiously-affiliated employers such as universities or hospitals should be able to opt out of the Obama administration’s mandate to cover the cost of contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization for female employees, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll released Tuesday.
Fifty-one percent believe all employers should be able to opt out.
The New York Times/CBS News poll's questions were not exactly accurate because they only mentioned "birth control" in describing the mandate. They did not mention that the mandate also requires coverage for sterilizations and drugs that induce abortions.
President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats have sought to take political advantage of the controversy over whether HHS should force people--particularly Catholics--to act against their faith in purchasing or providing insurance coverage for sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives including those that cause abortions. Democrats and the administration have tried to frame the issue as a question of conservatives and Catholic bishops waging a war on women.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Obama Wants Catholic Vote but Democrat Platform Anathema
For background, read The Pope, and Obama's War on Christianity and also read Obama's War on Christianity: Sen. Rubio Fires Back as well as Bishops Say Obama Destroying Societal Norm
-- From "Birth-Control Rule Debate Intensifying" by Gerald F. Seib, Wall Street Journal 3/13/12
[The Journal/NBC News survey] showed women by 53% to 38% said religiously affiliated employers should be able to opt out of the birth-control rule that requires employers, including religious institutions, to offer contraceptive drugs free of charge. Men favored a religious opt-out by a slightly wider margin.
. . . when asked whether the government should mandate that Roman Catholic and other religiously affiliated hospitals and colleges offer birth control paid for by the institutions' insurance companies—as required by the [ObamaCare] rule—Americans were opposed by 45% to 38%. Women split evenly, with 40% in favor and 40% opposed.
When Journal/NBC pollsters asked more specifically whether the government should require religious institutions to provide such contraception coverage—including the morning-after pill, which would be covered under the rule—opposition rose further. Americans overall were opposed 49% to 34%, and women were opposed by 46% to 35%.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "NYT Poll: Majority of Americans Say Employers Should Be Able to Opt Out of Contraception Mandate" by Fred Lucas, CNSNews.com 3/13/12
A significant majority – 57 percent -- of Americans believe religiously-affiliated employers such as universities or hospitals should be able to opt out of the Obama administration’s mandate to cover the cost of contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization for female employees, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll released Tuesday.
Fifty-one percent believe all employers should be able to opt out.
The New York Times/CBS News poll's questions were not exactly accurate because they only mentioned "birth control" in describing the mandate. They did not mention that the mandate also requires coverage for sterilizations and drugs that induce abortions.
President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats have sought to take political advantage of the controversy over whether HHS should force people--particularly Catholics--to act against their faith in purchasing or providing insurance coverage for sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives including those that cause abortions. Democrats and the administration have tried to frame the issue as a question of conservatives and Catholic bishops waging a war on women.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Obama Wants Catholic Vote but Democrat Platform Anathema
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Planned Parenthood Accused of $6M Medicaid Fraud
Abby Johnson, a Planned Parenthood clinic director at the time of the alleged fraudulent actions, has filed a federal “whistleblower” lawsuit accusing a Texas affiliate of the abortion provider of knowingly submitting at least 87,000 claims that were “false, fraudulent, and/or ineligible” for reimbursement by Medicaid, and subsequently attempting to cover up the wrongdoing.
The Obama Justice Department has declined to join the suit, and will not comment on the case.
For background, read Planned Parenthood Found Bilking Medicaid and also read Taxpayers Provide 46% of Abortionists' $Billion$ as well as Obama Stiffs Texas for Defunding Planned Parenthood
-- From "Planned Parenthood accused of $6M fraud" by Cheryl Wetzstein, The Washington Times 3/11/12
“Everyone, no matter what you think about abortion, should be interested in where our money is going and how it is being spent,” Ms. Johnson said. “As someone who saw the inside of this and saw the fraudulent billing and the fraudulent claims, I felt like I had a duty, and it was necessary for me to come forward with this information.”
. . . clinic staff “falsely notat[ed]” patients’ charts to “fix” and “cover up” the frauds before inspectors or auditors came, the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit was kept under seal until Friday, when U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt made it public. It alleges that the 10 clinics in Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast put in fraudulent claims worth about $5.7 million to the Texas Women’s Health Program, the state’s Medicaid program.
The lawsuit, if decided in favor of Ms. Johnson, could result in multimillion-dollar damages and penalties from Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast. As the whistleblower, Ms. Johnson could also receive as much as 30 percent of the amount recovered.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Planned Parenthood Accused of Medicaid Fraud, Wrongful Reimbursements Totaling $5.7M" by Eryn Sun , Christian Post Reporter 3/10/12
The lawsuit alleges that Planned Parenthood knowingly committed Medicaid fraud from 2007 to 2009 by improperly seeking reimbursements from the Texas WHP program, a new family planning program started in 2007, for products and services not reimbursable by that program.
An estimated 40 percent of the claims submitted by Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast to the Texas WHP program were "false, fraudulent, and/or ineligible for reimbursement," the suit noted.
More specifically, at least 87,075 of the claims made were fraudulent. In turn, Planned Parenthood received and retained reimbursements totaling more than $5.7 million.
Management additionally allegedly directed employees to cover their tracks by destroying fraudulent files and fixing charts as well.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Abby Johnson Is Whistleblower in Lawsuit Alleging Medicaid Fraud at Planned Parenthood" by Charlotte Hays, National Catholic Register 3/12/12
The suit was filed in 2010 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas . . .
When Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast’s alleged billing mistake was first discussed, according to Johnson, who was still working for Planned Parenthood at the time, it was during a regular staff meeting in 2009. The false billing had been going on for two years, according to the suit.
Johnson was present at the meeting, according to the suit. She told the Register that, when asked by an employee during that meeting what the affiliate planned to do about the false claims, one of the leaders said that they were going to hope that they “don’t get caught.”
[Michael Norton, chief counsel to the Alliance Defense Fund, which filed the suit on behalf of Johnson,] said that Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast was entitled to Medicaid reimbursement for birth-control-related services but that the abortion provider billed for other services that weren’t supposed to be covered.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
The Obama Justice Department has declined to join the suit, and will not comment on the case.
For background, read Planned Parenthood Found Bilking Medicaid and also read Taxpayers Provide 46% of Abortionists' $Billion$ as well as Obama Stiffs Texas for Defunding Planned Parenthood
-- From "Planned Parenthood accused of $6M fraud" by Cheryl Wetzstein, The Washington Times 3/11/12
“Everyone, no matter what you think about abortion, should be interested in where our money is going and how it is being spent,” Ms. Johnson said. “As someone who saw the inside of this and saw the fraudulent billing and the fraudulent claims, I felt like I had a duty, and it was necessary for me to come forward with this information.”
. . . clinic staff “falsely notat[ed]” patients’ charts to “fix” and “cover up” the frauds before inspectors or auditors came, the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit was kept under seal until Friday, when U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt made it public. It alleges that the 10 clinics in Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast put in fraudulent claims worth about $5.7 million to the Texas Women’s Health Program, the state’s Medicaid program.
The lawsuit, if decided in favor of Ms. Johnson, could result in multimillion-dollar damages and penalties from Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast. As the whistleblower, Ms. Johnson could also receive as much as 30 percent of the amount recovered.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Planned Parenthood Accused of Medicaid Fraud, Wrongful Reimbursements Totaling $5.7M" by Eryn Sun , Christian Post Reporter 3/10/12
The lawsuit alleges that Planned Parenthood knowingly committed Medicaid fraud from 2007 to 2009 by improperly seeking reimbursements from the Texas WHP program, a new family planning program started in 2007, for products and services not reimbursable by that program.
An estimated 40 percent of the claims submitted by Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast to the Texas WHP program were "false, fraudulent, and/or ineligible for reimbursement," the suit noted.
More specifically, at least 87,075 of the claims made were fraudulent. In turn, Planned Parenthood received and retained reimbursements totaling more than $5.7 million.
Management additionally allegedly directed employees to cover their tracks by destroying fraudulent files and fixing charts as well.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Abby Johnson Is Whistleblower in Lawsuit Alleging Medicaid Fraud at Planned Parenthood" by Charlotte Hays, National Catholic Register 3/12/12
The suit was filed in 2010 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas . . .
When Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast’s alleged billing mistake was first discussed, according to Johnson, who was still working for Planned Parenthood at the time, it was during a regular staff meeting in 2009. The false billing had been going on for two years, according to the suit.
Johnson was present at the meeting, according to the suit. She told the Register that, when asked by an employee during that meeting what the affiliate planned to do about the false claims, one of the leaders said that they were going to hope that they “don’t get caught.”
[Michael Norton, chief counsel to the Alliance Defense Fund, which filed the suit on behalf of Johnson,] said that Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast was entitled to Medicaid reimbursement for birth-control-related services but that the abortion provider billed for other services that weren’t supposed to be covered.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
