Indiana Outlaws Killing Disabled, Abortionists Sue

Yesterday, Gov. Mike Pence signed House Enrolled Act 1337, which makes it illegal to perform abortions on babies based on fetal genetic abnormalities or the fetus's race, sex or ancestry, and mandates that otherwise aborted babies must be buried or cremated.  Planned Parenthood has announced it will seek a court injunction to continue its butchery status quo.

"I believe that a society can be judged by how it deals with its most vulnerable — the aged, the infirm, the disabled and the unborn."
-- Gov. Mike Pence, Indiana

For background, read Arizona Bans Race- or Sex-Selection Abortion and hampers Abortion of Disabled

Also read Government Wants 'Defective Babies' to Harvest Organs

Click headlines below to read previous articles:

Planned Parenthood Illegally Dumps Babies in Landfills in Ohio, Kentucky and South Carolina

Aborted Babies Incinerated to Produce Waste Heat

Abortions Outlawed at 20 Weeks in South Dakota

Abortionists, Satanists Team Up vs. Missouri Law

Abortionist Says: God Called Me to Kill Black Babies

Most Abortions are Black and Hispanic Babies

Also read Feminists Decry Super Bowl Ad for 'Humanizing Fetuses'

-- From "New Indiana law bans abortions based on fetal genetic abnormalities like Down syndrome" by The Associated Press 3/24/16

Republican Gov. Mike Pence signed the measure just hours ahead of his deadline to take action on the proposal approved by the Republican-dominated Legislature two weeks ago, the governor's office said. It is due to take effect in July, but Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky said it will ask a court to block the measure before that can happen.

Pence called the bill "a comprehensive pro-life measure that affirms the value of all human life."

Pence was a prominent abortion rights opponent while serving in Congress before being elected governor in 2012 and received perfect scores from Indiana Right to Life for his record of opposing abortion.

Pence is also facing a tough re-election campaign in a rematch against Democrat John Gregg and will be counting on a strong turnout from his evangelical base in November. Gregg said Thursday he would have vetoed the measure.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Indiana Governor Signs Abortion Bill With Added Restrictions" by Mitch Smith, New York Times 3/24/16

The law, which passed both chambers of the Republican-controlled General Assembly with large majorities, builds on Indiana’s already restrictive abortion rules, and was cheered by anti-abortion groups that had encouraged Gov. Mike Pence to sign it.

In addition to holding doctors liable if a woman has an abortion solely because of objections to the fetus’s race, sex or a disability, like Down syndrome, the law restricts fetal tissue donation and requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital or to have an agreement with a doctor who does.

The measure drew a sharp rebuke from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and other abortion rights groups, and the law returned Indiana to the center of a national debate about social issues.

The law could also put some doctors who perform abortions in jeopardy if it is learned that a woman told them that she chose to end her pregnancy because of gender, disabilities or other reasons limited by the law.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pence signs new abortion restrictions into law with a prayer" by Chelsea Schneider and Tony Cook, Indianapolis Star 3/25/16

It's a divisive issue that's once again placed the state at the center of a national debate. And a legal challenge to the law, which takes effect in July, is already in the works. Less than half an hour after Pence signed the measure, Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky said it plans to request a preliminary injunction to block the new restrictions . . . [by] working with the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana in its plans to file a legal challenge.

“By enacting this legislation, we take an important step in protecting the unborn, while still providing an exception for the life of the mother. I sign this legislation with a prayer that God would continue to bless these precious children, mothers and families,” Pence said in a statement.

The controversial and potentially unconstitutional measure further restricts abortion in Indiana — already one of the most restrictive states in the nation. . . .

Social conservative groups, including Indiana Right to Life and the American Family Association of Indiana, had advocated for the new restrictions. Micah Clark, the leader of the family association, has said the measure “protects these special needs children from an intentional abortion based upon their genetics” in an email to supporters.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Indiana Bans Abortions Based On Gender, Race And Prenatal Diagnosis Of Disabilities" by Reuters 3/25/16

Republicans ushered the bill through the state legislature over the last three months despite opposition from some conservative lawmakers, including Representative Cindy Kirchhofer, who felt the measure was too restrictive.

North Dakota is the only U.S. state that prohibits abortions based on fetal anomalies. Seven states ban those based on gender, and Arizona prohibits those based on race, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an organization that tracks abortion laws.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Indiana Becomes Second State to Ban Abortions Based on Down Syndrome" by Steven Ertelt, Micaiah Bilger, LifeNews.com 3/24/16

. . . The bill also has several other abortion-related measures, including a requirement that aborted or miscarried babies’ bodies be cremated or buried and another requirement that abortionists who have hospital admitting privileges renew them annually. The burial/cremation requirement backs up a law passed in 2015 by Gov. Pence requiring that aborted babies’ bodies be disposed of in a humane way.

Indiana state Sen. Liz Brown, who worked with [Sen. Travis] Holdman on the measure, said previously that many families face pressure to abort from doctors or other health care professionals when their babies are diagnosed with an illness or disability in the womb. LifeNews has documented numerous cases of families saying the same thing.

“What we hear from doctors is — it would really be better off if you were not born,” Brown said. “If you are born, we will love you, and we think you have equal rights and should be a member of society. In fact, we have the Americans with Disabilities Act and have to make accommodations. But we don’t want to make the accommodation before you’re born, and in fact, it would really be easier if you were not born.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pence signs new abortion restrictions into law" by Chelsea Schneider, Tony Cook and Shari Rudavsky, Indianapolis Star 3/24/16

. . . questions remain about whether the bill will have much of a practical impact on the decisions women make or on Indiana's abortion rate, which has declined 20 percent in the past five years and is below the national average.

. . . it's unclear how the law would play out in real life. The proposed ban on abortions would apply only when the sole reason for seeking the procedure is because the fetus may have a disability or is of a certain gender, race, color, national origin or ancestry.

Beth Cate, a public policy professor at Indiana University, questioned whether doctors would be left to infer a woman’s reasons for seeking an abortion based on her medical questions.

How do you know the reason a woman is seeking an abortion unless she explicitly states it — or does the doctor try to read her mind?

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read this Gallup poll: Americans Want Abortion Laws Changed

And read 'Free' Abortions Promised by Hillary Clinton for Planned Parenthood Endorsement

Infanticide for the Disabled Pushed by Bioethicist

Udu Schuklenk, Professor of Philosophy and Ontario Research Chair in Bioethics at Queen’s University, who headed the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on End-of-Life Decision Making, is advocating what he calls "postnatal abortion" for imperfect babies not wanted by his/her parent(s).

“Once we have concluded that death is what is in the best interest of the infant, it is unreasonable not to bring about this death as painlessly and as much controlled in terms of timing by the parents as is feasible.”

For background, read how American attitudes regarding "defective human beings" are trending toward that of Belgium where doctors kill months-old infants who are deemed deficient.

-- From "End-of-life debate turns to newborns: ‘Postnatal abortion’ morally acceptable in some cases, ethicist says" by Tom Blackwell, National Post 12/7/14

[Prof. Schuklenk] wrote the opinion piece after being invited to debate the newborn issue at a conference of the American Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery in Toronto earlier this year.

Euthanasia would even be preferable to “terminal sedation,” where food and liquids are removed from a dying patient, because it would save parents and medical staff the distress of seeing a baby waste away over days or weeks, said Prof. Schuklenk.

The Netherlands does permit euthanasia of some newborns. . . .

[Schuklenk] rejected the notion that allowing euthanasia in such cases would lead to a slippery slope where the idea is applied increasingly broadly. . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Should severely disabled infants be euthanased?" by Michael Cook, BioEdge 12/6/14

After dismissing arguments drawn from human dignity, sanctity-of-life, and the principle of double effect, Schuklenk still has to explain why a suffering infant could not be simply sedated so that it would not suffer, thus avoiding the need for euthanasia. The answer he says, is that parents and doctors and nurses would suffer unnecessarily.

The unnecessarily prolonged dying of their infant son would extend a severely distressing situation for the parents. They would have to witness the deterioration of their infant son over a period of days, possibly weeks. Some of the attending health care professionals would undoubtedly also find it psychologically difficult to watch the child die foreseeably an unnecessarily slow death. …. Given that a terminally sedated infant would have no surviving interests to speak of, the interests of these other parties matter. If his prolonged dying is harmful to them, a further quality-of-life based argument in favor of terminating the infant's life is established.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "The 'Quality of Life' Slouch Toward Infanticide" by Wesley J. Smith, National Review Online 5/15/14

[Udu Schuklenk writes in his] “What We Should Do About Severely Impaired Newborns?”

If we merely go by the newborn’s quality of life and life prospects it seems indeed best to end the unfolding tragedy sooner rather than later, but probably a decision should be arrived at with parental consent as opposed to against the unfortunate parents. It turns out that one can reasonably answer the rhetorical question of whether one would want to live in a society that terminated the lives of certain severely impaired newborns if one held the view – as I do – that the newborn’s current and future quality of life is all that matters here. I could live in such a society where empathy for human suffering trumps religious conviction.

Don’t be fooled by the “parental consent” nonsense. First, parents shouldn’t have the power to have their babies killed. Beyond that, if we owe a duty to the baby to kill him, then parental rights become irrelevant and it’s veto time. Relevantly, back in the late 1990s, The Lancet reported that 27% of infanticides in the Netherlands–all based on a supposedly “unlivable life” occurs without parental consent.

If the parents’ reason for wanting to love their baby as long as he lives can be viewed as religious–strongly hinted by Schuklenk as the only reason anyone could oppose, it’s really veto time!

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Oscars Revoke Christian Song - Joni Eareckson Tada

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences chose the low-budget Christian movie Alone Yet Not Alone for its first-ever revocation of an Oscar nomination on ethical grounds.  The nomination of the film's title song, performed by quadriplegic Christian singer and leading evangelist Joni Eareckson Tada, has been criticized for associations with "anti-gay" personalities.

"If the academy is just hoping they can keep quiet and this story will go away, they need to find a different strategy."
-- Daniel Diermeier, Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management

For background, read Poll: Gay Agenda Complete when Christians Muzzled and also read Sen. Ted Cruz Says Gay Agenda Ends Christian Liberty

Click for Fox News' Megyn Kelly interview of Joni Eareckson Tada (2/10/14)

-- From "Oscar nod revoked for 'Alone Yet Not Alone'" posted at The Columbus Dispatch 1/31/14

The academy discovered that composer Bruce Broughton emailed members of the group’s music branch during the voting period to make them aware of his submission.

Broughton is a member of the music branch’s executive committee and a former governor for the academy.

Academy President Cheryl Boone Isaacs said Wednesday that using a position within the organization to promote one’s Oscar submission creates the appearance of an unfair advantage.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Voices rising amid 'Alone Yet Not Alone's' removal from Oscar running" by Steven Zeitchik and Glenn Whipp, Los Angeles Times 1/31/14

. . . the action has prompted criticism that the academy has cracked down on a small movie that can't compete with big-budget Oscar campaigns mounted by studios. "Alone Yet Not Alone," from a film of the same name about 18th century Colonists in the Ohio Valley, is a low-budget, faith-based movie that features an iconic quadriplegic pastor.

Veteran awards consultant Cynthia Swartz says she doesn't understand how Broughton's email was different from any number of other things that the academy allows during campaigning for Oscar nominations. Producers and studio executives, she notes, routinely send email invitations to friends for screenings of their movies, events that also include refreshments.

In an interview, pastor Eareckson Tada said she was unsure what to make of the academy's decision.

"If it was for reasons connected with a faith-based message, it shouldn't surprise us that Hollywood would shun Jesus," she said. "Jesus has been shunned by much weedier characters."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Academy Disqualifies Joni Eareckson Tada's Oscar-Nominated Song from Christian Movie" by Kate Tracy, Christianity Today 1/30/14

Since nominations were announced, the song—performed by quadriplegic Christian author and speaker Joni Eareckson Tada—drew criticism and confusion from Hollywood for beating out musicians featured in more popular films. The latest news stokes the debate even further, given that Oscar lobbying and campaigning are arguably common practices.

The nomination has received negative reactions not for its quality, but for the film's endorsements by James Dobson, Rick Santorum, and Josh Dugger, executive director of Family Resource Council Action, among others. Film.com framed the movie as endorsed by "anti-gay hate group activists," while the Boston Globe headline reads, "The Oscar nomination that stinks to heaven." Hitflix writes: "There were audible gasps and chuckles when Cheryl Boone Isaacs began reading the list of nominees in the category, and first off the bat was "Alone Yet Not Alone" from, er, Alone Yet Not Alone…It doesn't seem a stretch to call this Christian drama the most obscure feature film nominated for an Oscar this year."

. . . The film will be released in theaters nationwide this June.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
 
From "Singer of un-nominated Oscar song issues statement" posted at Asheville Citizen-Times 1/30/14

“I was grateful for the attention the nomination brought to this worthy song and the inspirational film behind it,” said Tada, who is founder and CEO of Joni and Friends International Disability Center.

The nomination brought attention to “the ongoing work of Joni and Friends to people affected by disabilities,” she said. “The decision by the Academy to rescind the nomination may well bring even further attention, and I only hope it helps to further extend the message and impact of the song.”

A diving accident in 1967 left Joni Eareckson, then 17, a quadriplegic, without the use of her hands. During her rehabilitation, she learned how to paint with a brush between her teeth, and she has since become a well-known artist. She is the author of an autobiography, “Joni,” which was made into a feature film in 1979, with Tada playing herself.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Joni Eareckson Tada: I hope Oscar award revocation brings ‘further attention’ to dignity of disabled" by Ben Johnson, LifeSiteNews.com 1/31/14

The nomination of Alone Yet Not Alone surprised many, since the film, which details how the Christian faith sustained a family captured by the Delaware Indians during the French-Indian War, had a limited release before a tiny audience. It will be released in full later this year.

“Regarding the reasons for the nomination being rescinded, it is not my place to speculate as I have no insights into the workings of the entertainment industry,” she said. “If it were for reasons connected with the faith-based message of this film, we shouldn’t be surprised that Hollywood shuns Christ and His message. He was shunned by weightier adversaries than those in the field of entertainment.”

The nomination of a song by a singer with 51 percent of her lung capacity showed the possibilities inherent in any disabled person, she said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read about Hollywood's Disproportionate Attention to the Gay Agenda as well as Study Claims Media Bias FOR Gays is Christians' Fault

ObamaCare Death Panel Lurks in New Jersey

In a case that could have nationwide implications, Trinitas Regional Medical Center here wants an appeals court to decide whether hospitals can refuse to continue life support over the objections of a patient’s family.

-- From "N.J. court to rule whether hospitals may refuse life support despite wishes of families, patients" by Sue Epstein, The Star-Ledger (New Jersey) 4/28/10

The hospital argued it should also be able to decide, in certain cases, whether to end life support even if patients have written directives stipulating they want life-sustaining efforts to continue.

"The hospital is not looking for the courts to overturn the advanced directives law, but to carve out an exception," said Kathleen Boozang, a professor of law at Seton Hall University School of Law. "I’d say the hospital is looking for a narrow decision that (when) doctors believe the care given is grossly inhumane and medically inappropriate, the hospital has the right to terminate treatment."

Indeed, Gary Riveles, the attorney representing Trinitas, said hospital physicians "have to have the right to say enough is enough. The patient or patient’s surrogate should not have the unfettered right to maintain life when there is no chance left."

In a New Brunswick courtroom today, attorneys for the family at the center of the Trinitas appeal, along with advocates for the disabled and others who filed as friends of the court, asked the appellate judges to allow the final decision on life support to remain with patients and their families.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Organ Harvesting Before "Brain-Death" Increasingly Common, Concerned Doctors Warn

Warning that changing definition of death will eventually lead to organ harvesting from disabled

From "Organ Harvesting Before "Brain-Death" Increasingly Common, Concerned Doctors Warn" by Gudrun Schultz, posted 3/21/07 at LifeSite.org

Organ harvesting from patients before brain-death has been declared as a rapidly increasing trend in U. S. hospitals, the Washington Post reported March 18, alarming doctors and ethicists about the dubious ethics behind the practice.

Instead of waiting until brain function ceases and the patient is declared "brain-dead" by medical officials (itself a questionable practice since there is no universally-accepted definition of brain-death) surgeons have begun following an approach known as "donation after cardiac death." Organs are harvested once the heart has stopped beating and several minutes have passed without the heart spontaneously re-starting.

"The person is not dead yet," said Jerry A. Menikoff, an associate professor
of law, ethics and medicine at the University of Kansas. "They are going to
be dead, but we should be honest and say that we're starting to remove the
organs a few minutes before they meet the legal definition of death."

"Non-beating heart" organ donations have more than doubled since 2003, from 268 to more than 605 in 2006, and the numbers are continuing to rise. The United Network for Organ Sharing and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations now require all hospitals to evaluate the practice and decide whether or not to adopt it.

The Alliance for Human Research Protection issued an alert Sunday warning that the policy is under consideration by hospitals without allowing for public input.

"The race to catch-up to China's policy of live vivisection organ removal from prisoners is underway right here in the US where, the Post reports, the trend is expected to accelerate this year," the AHRP stated.

"So far as we know, our right to informed consent--which means the right to
say, NO--has been abrogated without so much as a public hearing!"

While doctors normally wait five minutes after the heart has stopped before pronouncing death, more and more doctors are shortening the wait period to maximize the quality of the organs. Surgeons at the Children's Hospital in Denver, Colorado wait only 75 seconds after infants' hearts stop beating before removing the heart for transplant, according to the Post. The demand for usable organs is a powerful incentive to push back the ethical boundaries of harvesting policies, say alarmed physicians.

"A lot of us are not particularly happy about cutting that line particularly
close," said Gail A. Van Norman, an anesthesiologist and bioethicist at the
University of Washington in Seattle.

"It's worrisome when you stop thinking of the person who is dying as a patient but rather as a set of organs, and start thinking more about what's best for the patient in the next room waiting for the organs."

While the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine approved the practice as ethical so long as strict guidelines are followed, opponents say it is difficult to ensure patients are not being killed by over-eager harvesting, particularly in pediatric situations. Van Norman and others said the practice could put pressure on families to stop care prematurely, especially when doctors and nurses are caring for both the potential donor and potential recipient.

David Crippen, a University of Pittsburgh critical-care specialist, told the Post he is concerned the changing definition of death will eventually lead to organ harvesting from the disabled.

"Now that we've established that we're going to take organs from patients
who have a prognosis of death but who do not meet the strict definition of
death, might we become more interested in taking organs from patients who
are not dead at all but who are incapacitated or disabled?"