PLANNED PARENTHOOD ABORTION FACILITIES TARGET AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITIES
By Susan W. Enouen, P.E.

Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, African Americans have taken a disproportionate blow to their population growth. Although today there are thirty-four million African Americans in the US, fourteen million unborn black American babies have been aborted since 1973, representing over one fourth of their potential population.1 Today, blacks account for 12.3% of the American population, but African American women receive 36% of the abortions and are three times more likely than white women to have an abortion.2 The sad fact is, more African American babies have been killed by abortion since 1973 than the total number of African American deaths from AIDS, violent crimes, accidents, cancer and heart disease combined.3

One key factor that has contributed to this tragedy is the lasting influence of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Sanger began the “Negro Project” in 1939 to promote birth control as a solution to the poverty and degradation experienced, at that time, by blacks in general. Sanger was a strong proponent of birth control for the “unfit” in society, who she believed should be discouraged from reproducing.4 Sanger sought to prevent the growth of certain segments of society, including blacks, through legislation or easy availability of sterilization and birth control. She recognized that these efforts might be seen as an attempt at racial genocide, and that the best approach must include recruiting and training African American doctors and ministers to help with the project. Margaret wrote in a letter to Clarence Gamble dated October 19, 1939, “The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”5 She convinced black leaders that birth control and sterilization would “improve the welfare of the Negro population,” and she enlisted their help in a mission to reduce maternal and infant mortality through birth control (as opposed to better pre-natal and medical care).6 Thus began an undeniable effort to limit the growth of the African American population, irrespective of the intent.

Margaret Sanger’s legacy to society is represented and promoted today by Planned Parenthood. For years, pro-life leaders have insisted that Planned Parenthood has targeted African Americans for abortion by placing their abortion facilities in black communities. Two separate studies relying on Census 2000 statistics verify that this claim is indeed supported by the data. Randy Hall of CNSNews published results of the first study in a Feb. 7, 2005 article, “Abortion Causing ‘Black Genocide,’ Activists Say.”7 Although Planned Parenthood does not provide a comprehensive list of its abortion facilities, Hall obtained the locations of 160 US Planned Parenthood abortion outlets from the website of Stop Planned Parenthood (STOPP) International. Hall compared the percentage of African Americans in the cities where these facilities were located to the percentage of African Americans living in that particular state. The results showed that 62.5% of these Planned Parenthood facilities were located in cities having a higher black percentage than the state.

In a separate study, initiated by Life Issues Institute, a similar set of Planned Parenthood abortion facilities that existed in 2002-2003 was obtained from Life Dynamics, Inc., an investigative pro-life organization. This set included 151 Planned Parenthood abortion outlets and their locations in the United States. Using Census 2000 Summary File 1, each facility location was analyzed for the percentage of African American residents within one-, three- and five-mile radiuses of the facility, respectively. The percentages within the appropriate abortion facility radiuses were compared to the African American percentage of the city where the facility was located. This would determine if there was any indication that the facility was placed in a more predominantly black neighborhood. In addition, the radius and city percentages were compared to the state percentage to see if either of these was higher than the state overall. Using this set of criteria, 60% of the abortion facilities had surrounding black populations that were measurably higher than either the city or the state average. Significantly, 34% of the facilities had a black population more than 5 percentage points higher than the surrounding city or state. Considering that African Americans comprise only 12.3% of the national population, this is a notable variance.

One representative example is Des Moines, Iowa, where the overall state percentage of African Americans is 2.1%. Des Moines itself is 8.1% black. Within a one-mile radius of the abortion facility, the percentage of African Americans is 26.5%. Another case in point would be West Hartford, Connecticut, where the state percentage is 9.5%. West Hartford itself is lower, at 4.8%. Yet, within a five-mile radius of the abortion facility, the percentage of African American residents is 19.6%. A final example would be the city of Syracuse, New York, where the abortion facility’s three-mile radius shows a percentage of 25.8%, which is similar to the city percentage of 25.3%, but significantly higher than the state average of 15.9%.

These studies suggest a strategic intent behind Planned Parenthood’s placement of its abortion facilities. Not surprisingly, many of the facilities are placed in large metropolitan areas, where the percentage of African Americans tends to be higher. However, large city abortion outlets account for only about 25% of the 151 facilities in the second study. In California, for instance, there were a total of 40 Planned Parenthood abortion facilities listed. Of the 28 that were not located in large cities, 50% still showed appreciably higher percentages of African Americans surrounding the facilities than either the city or state average. This was also true in Arizona, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Washington and Utah, all of which had a larger number of their abortion facilities in smaller cities.

Planned Parenthood has made a concerted effort to distance itself from Margaret Sanger and her eugenics-motivated international birth control movement. Her slogans included, “More children from the fit, less from the unfit - that is the chief aim of birth control,”8 and “Birth Control: to create a race of thoroughbreds.”9 From its inception, the birth control movement was a mechanism used by the social elitists to control the population growth of the lower echelons of society.10 Although birth control today is used as a lifestyle choice rather than primarily a eugenics tool, Planned Parenthood still follows the legacy of Margaret Sanger in the changing of societal views about birth control and abortion. Sanger successfully promoted the idea that it was desirable to prevent the births of those unwanted by society, a scheme with ramifications that have expanded into the acceptance of abortion. Planned Parenthood’s financial benefit from this societal shift amounted to $273,000,000 in net profits for the last five fiscal years. During the same time period, they received $1.06 billion in government grants and contracts.11 It’s clear that the strategic placement of their abortion facilities matches their financial incentive to make abortions highly accessible to the women in this targeted population.

This deadly trend begun by Margaret Sanger, and advanced by the abortion industry, must be reversed. We can begin the process by educating the African American community about the devastation this path continues to wreak upon the black population. As of the 2000 Census, African Americans are no longer the largest minority in the US.12 Without a concerted effort, this course is not likely to change anytime soon. The time has come to change hearts and minds so that African American women and their unborn babies will be spared the tragedy of abortion. Our nation’s future depends upon it.

1 US Census Bureau; 2000 Census
2 US Center for Disease Control Abortion Surveillance Report 11/26/04 Accessed at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/
preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm
3 Based on cumulative statistics provided by the US Center for Disease Control; Accessed at: http://blackgenocide.org/
negro.html
4 Tanya L. Green, The Negro Project: Margaret Sanger’s EUGENIC Plan for Black Americans, Life Education And Resource Network (LEARN); p. 2. Accessed at: http://
blackgenocide.org/negro.html
5 Linda Gordon, Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, (New York, Grossman Publishers) 1976; p. 333.
6 Tanya L. Green, The Negro Project: Margaret Sanger’s EUGENIC Plan for Black Americans, Life Education And Resource Network (LEARN); pp 3-5. Accessed at: http://
blackgenocide.org/negro.html
7 Randy Hall, Abortion Causing ‘Black Genocide,’ Activists Say, CNSNews, Feb. 7, 2005. Accessed at: http://www.cns
news.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\ SpecialReports
\archive \200502\SPE20050207a.html
8 Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Review, May 1919 (Vol. III, no. 5); p. 12.
9 Ibid., November 1921 (Vol. V, no. 11); p. 2.
10 Elasah Drogin, Margaret Sanger, Father of Modern Society, (CUL Publications) 1989; pp. 12-13.
11 PPFA Annual Reports 1998/99 - 2002/2003. Accessed at: http://www.all.org/stopp/04tbacpa.htm
12 US Census Bureau; 2000 Census

Susan W. Enouen, P.E., is currently a homemaker and volunteer with a B.S. and M.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Ohio State University. Her professional experience includes work in data analysis and research for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Dupont, and Battelle Memorial Institute. She and her husband, Robert, live in Cincinnati, OH with their three children.

LIFE ISSUES Today
with J.C. Willke, M.D.

The Truth About Fetal Pain

An article recently published in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association (August 24, vol. 294, p.947) has caused quite a stir. The authors claim that the fetus’ neurological pathways in its brain that allow “the conscious perception of pain” do not function until after 28 weeks. To say that there has been an explosion of criticism is quite an understatement. Reactions to it have centered on basically three issues.

One is that preemie infants born prior to 29 weeks, and as early as 22-23 weeks, do show ample evidence of feeling pain as they react to painful stimuli, withdraw from it and cry. A second major comment has been that the article offers no new research but merely goes over certain previous findings. Third, much has been made of the inferred bias of the authors, one of whom is the medical director of the abortion facility at San Francisco General Hospital. It has been reported that this hospital commits 600 abortions a year, done in the 5th and 6th months of pregnancy. The other author previously worked for NARAL. These are valid comments, and in and of themselves go a long way to destroy the scientific credibility of the article. However, it is obvious that a more in-depth analysis would be helpful.

Having read the article carefully, I was immediately struck by the fact that if you can change a definition to fit your needs, then it is easy to prove your point. Changing the commonly accepted definition of pain is the heart of the matter. Note above that the article speaks of “conscious perception” of pain. Further, they defined pain as “a sensory and emotional experience that requires the presence of consciousness to permit recognition of stimulus as unpleasant.” Their definition of pain is simply wrong.

If we define pain as being cerebral, if we define it as only existing when there is consciousness and memory, if we define all other responses to noxious stimuli as mere reflexes that really don’t hurt, then the article has certain merit. But herein lies the basic falsehood of their analysis. As a matter of fact, you do not need consciousness to react to a painful stimulus. Furthermore, you don’t even need cerebral hemispheres. Several examples will illustrate this.

If you put your finger on a hot stove, you will pull it back immediately. Your finger will be off of that hot burner prior to when your brain consciously registers pain. That is a reflex, yes, but the fact that it is a reflex does not mean that it didn’t hurt, for your finger certainly hurt and later developed a blister.

Anencephalic babies are born without the higher parts of their brain. All they have is a brain stem. Therefore, they certainly do not have consciousness. Some of them live several days or longer. During this brief neonatal period, if you stick them with a needle, or their diapers are wet, they will cry. Do they feel pain? I doubt if any mother, father or attending physician would claim that this is not pain, for it obviously is.

Let’s look at another example as early as 8 – 10 weeks of fetal age intrauterine. If you stick this developing baby in the palm of her hand with a needle, she will withdraw her hand. She will also open her mouth. We can compare this to a newborn infant who is stuck with a pin while being changed in a cloth diaper. Said baby will withdraw his little butt and complain loudly. All three of these reactions are the same.

What then is the neural mechanism of this? A peripheral or surface pain stimulus is carried by way of a sensory nerve to a portion of the brain stem called the thalamus. The thalamus resembles a switchboard. It directs the pain message down a motor nerve. This motor nerve goes to the fetus’s palm or the diapered baby’s little butt and activates a muscular recoil, the same as pulling your finger from the hot burner.

Until somewhat recent years, there was a certain amount of conventional wisdom in the medical field that very premature babies could not feel pain. Because of this, a born preemie would be operated on without any anesthetic. That has largely been disproved in recent years by a series of articles, which report that not only does a premature baby (or fetus) feel pain, but also that this tiny person feels far more generalized and severe pain than an adult.

The reason for this is the myelin sheath. A myelin sheath is basically an insulation. It can be compared to the covering over an electric wire. That wire receives an electric charge at one end and delivers it out the other end without that electric charge escaping enroute because of the insulated covering. Grown children and adults have their peripheral nerves sheathed in myelin so that the stimulus at one end carries to the thalamus without impacting the tissues it passes through on the way. This localizes the pain to where the noxious stimulus is applied. It is now known that an older fetus and premature babies do not have this protective myelin sheath or do not have it completed. Because of this, a pain stimulus at one end is not just felt at the tip where this stimulus is applied, but probably is felt all along the course of that exposed nerve fiber. This being true, that tiny infant then feels far more agonizing pain than the older child or adult subject to the same painful stimulus.

Let’s quote a few authorities. Dr. Jean Wright at Emory University said, “Infants at 23 weeks show very highly specific and well coordinated physiologic and behavioral responses to pain similar to older infants.” Blechschmidt has stated, “At 7 weeks of fetal age they twitch or turn their head away from a stimulus in the same defense maneuver seen at all stages of life.” Matviuw has said, “By 13 weeks, the fetal organic response to pain is more than a reflex. It is an integrated physiological attempt to avert the noxious stimulus.” (See Abortion Questions and Answers by the author, 1991, pages 65-69.)

But isn’t it true the unborn baby cannot tell us that he or she feels pain? Good question. But there is an answer. Pain can be detected when nociceptors (pain receptors) discharge electrical impulses to the spinal cord and brain. They fire impulses outward telling the muscles in the body to react, as I noted above. These can be measured. Further, changes in heart rate and fetal movements, as well as movement of the newborn preemie, also suggest a response to painful stimulus.
Most recently, the United States District Court for the southern district of New York received extensive testimony from experts on both sides regarding fetal pain during partial-birth abortion. The testimony of one doctor, Kanwaljeet Anand, (which was not challenged) described that fetuses undergo severe pain during abortion procedures.

One of those who defended the controversial JAMA article was Dr. David Grimes, who until recently was chief of the department of OB-GYN at the same San Francisco General hospital as one of the authors. We might note that Grimes, along with Dr. Cates, for many years did second and third-trimester abortions in Atlanta. Cates authored an article suggesting that the financial charge for a late-term abortion be calibrated on the length of the fetal foot. Grimes, since that time, has been a notorious defender of unrestricted abortions.

In closing, I note that the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (S51, HR356,) requires that the mother be told a late-term abortion will cause pain and that the fetal infant be given an anesthetic. The obvious purpose of the authors of the JAMA paper was to damage the prospects of passage of this bill. Considering the above, we hope their attempt will be counterproductive and that the bills will pass.

KOMEN FOUND. SUPPORTS ABORTION INDUSTRY
by Bradley Mattes

In a past issue of Life Issues Connector we informed you of the close relationship between the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and Planned Parenthood and other abortion mills. We’d like to bring you up-to-date information regarding the ongoing partnership between state affiliates of the Komen Foundation and the abortion industry.

The Komen Foundation was founded in 1982 by Nancy Goodman Brinker after losing her sister, Susan Komen, to breast cancer. The key to Komen’s financial success has been its annual Race for the Cure, a 5K run/fitness walk, which began as a single event in Dallas in 1983.

Most people are familiar with the Race for the Cure and have a positive impression of the organization. Many pro-lifers have participated in one or more of the races. The Komen Foundation’s mission is to “eradicate breast cancer as a life-threatening disease by advancing research, education, screening and treatment.” A few years ago we reported on the darker side of the Komen Foundation – that is, its partnership with those who promote abortion, a linked cause to breast cancer.

Right to Life of Indianapolis has done a stellar job of researching the latest information on the Komen Foundation as it relates to abortion. We are pleased to share some of this with you. More information can be accessed through our website at http://www.lifeissues.org/AbortionBreastcancer/komen/index.htm. This includes a list of Komen affiliates and exactly what they have funded, as well as documentation.

Right to Life of Indianapolis obtained this information directly from the affiliates’ websites, personal correspondence with the Komen Foundation staff and representatives, press releases and news articles.

This recent data comes as a big disappointment to pro-lifers everywhere. The Komen Foundation funds a significant amount of noble and very worthwhile research programs. However, this cannot erase the fact that they also fund a portion of the abortion industry, which ironically could be causing the very breast cancer they strive to eradicate.

Further, the Komen Foundation has taken a clear opposing view to the overwhelming evidence regarding the link between abortion and breast cancer. Their website lists abortion first under “factors not related to breast cancer.” It appears that the Komen Foundation has placed politics over the lives of women. Twenty-eight out of thirty-seven worldwide studies have independently linked abortion with breast cancer. Seven studies report a more than twofold-increased risk.

There are about 115 Komen affiliates in twenty-two states throughout the nation. At least 112 of them sponsor a Race for the Cure fundraising event. At least 48 of them have given grants to Planned Parenthood facilities and other abortion mills. Over 100 grants have been given to these entities of the abortion industry since 1998.

Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest single provider and promoter of abortion. Based upon scientific evidence, thousands of additional women may be dying from breast cancer every year as a result of the abortions Planned Parenthood performs throughout the nation. In reality, the Komen Foundation may be aiding and abetting the spread of breast cancer by funding Planned Parenthood and other abortion mills.

Planned Parenthood’s annual report of 2003-2004 showed that they increased the number of abortions performed from 230,630 in 2002 to 244,628 in 2003. This is an increase of 6.1%. At the same time, Planned Parenthood actually did 13.3% fewer breast exams and breast care.

Eve Sanchez Silver was a Hispanic/Latina Advisory Council Member for the Komen foundation. She resigned in protest when she became aware of Komen’s association with the abortion industry. Ms. Silver said, “Susan G. Komen’s concern for the health of women is now parallel to Planned Parenthood’s concern for the health of the children that they abort.”

In spite of the growing controversy, the Komen Foundation hasn’t changed their pro-abortion philosophy. Planned Parenthood of San Antonio and South Central Texas stated on their website that “the leadership at Komen has pledged full support of Planned Parenthood.”

Planned Parenthood is more than happy to wrap its name within the goodwill and image of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. The emphasis on breast exams, even though they are spending less resources and time doing them, detracts from the reality that they commit nearly one quarter million abortions every year.

Go to the above link to see if your local Komen affiliate is involved in supporting the abortion industry. Don’t assume they are in the clear if they’re not on the list. As this controversy grows, they may be trying to hide their association. Do further research to find out. Regardless, meet with your local representative and share the scientific information that demonstrates a link between abortion and breast cancer. You can find more information at our website, www.lifeissues.org. If they refuse to stop funding the abortion industry, contact companies that support their efforts. Send out a press release and do media interviews. Educate your community to this unholy alliance if it exists in your area.

Local pressure will be the most effective way to persuade Komen affiliates to divest themselves of the abortion industry. It’s important you do what you can in your own community.

NATIONAL GIRL SCOUTS PRO-ABORTION
by J.C. Willke, M.D.

The National Girl Scout’s continual drift into radical pro-abortion feminism was recently highlighted. A major speaker at their annual October convention was Kavita Ramdas, president and CEO of the Global Fund for Women, a radical pro-abortion feminist organization. Ms. Ramdas was quoted on its website in 2003 stating, “As women in the US celebrate the 30th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, we are proud to bring you highlights of ongoing efforts to protect women’s reproductive health and rights.” Another major speaker was Dr. Johnetta Cole, an equally radical, pro-abortion feminist who keynoted this national convention in Atlanta.

The national leadership should have learned a lesson last year in Waco, Texas. There, a Girl Scout council cosponsored a teen sex education conference with Planned Parenthood and honored its executive director. When this was publicized, there was a literal explosion from parents and the community. A cookie boycott was called. Only after a firestorm of protest did the Council sever its ties with Planned Parenthood.

However, the national organization had not changed. On NBC’s Today Show, Kathy Cloninger, the CEO of Girls Scouts USA, admitted that it “partners with Planned Parenthood across the country to bring information based sex education programs to girls.” In response to this, STOPP International surveyed all 350 Scout councils. Eighty percent refused to answer. 17 councils said they do associate with Planned Parenthood, and 49 said they do not.

The Waco bishop told his 30 Catholic troops “Scouting troops should not support, encourage, or in anyway endorse the activities and programs of Planned Parenthood or any other organization espousing similar beliefs and practices. Those who embrace such beliefs will not be permitted the use of parish or school facilities.”

Other Documented Examples:
- A former Planned Parenthood official has been appointed to lead the Great Plains Council of the Girl Scouts in Nebraska.
- Junior Girl Scouts in Pennsylvania can attend a workshop on puberty, designed by Planned Parenthood, and earn a badge.
- Connecticut Girl Scouts honored a Planned Parenthood official for promoting “health practices” in local troops.
- Amarillo, Texas, Girl Scouts sponsored a Planned Parenthood sex education seminar for 4th through 8th graders.
- The national organization openly acknowledged its acceptance of lesbians in leadership positions.
- In Philadelphia, to earn their badge “to be a woman” they may refer to Planned Parenthood as a resource. This could include touring an abortion clinic.
- Kathryn Lopez with the National Review wrote, “The time is long past when parents decide what a girl’s lifestyle should be.”
- Some years ago, Girls Scouts began purging materials of positive references to homemakers.
- The Scouts now promote “girl empowerment,” focusing heavily on a narcissistic devotion to self.

So if you think that your 12-year-old daughter who joined the scouts to go hiking, collect leaves, make candles and do bird watching is in safe hands, it may be time for you to investigate what your Girl Scout troop and council are doing. We must emphasize there are hundreds of troops that still observe the traditional family- and God-centered practices of the original Girl Scouts. But the philosophy coming down from National is spreading. In the meantime, understand that there are 3.7 million Girl Scouts, each of whom pays a $10 membership fee which goes directly to the National office. This brings over $26,000,000 a year into its national treasury. The National Catholic Register in May noted that there are still some Christian people in its leadership, but “We are outnumbered. The feminists have been infiltrating for too long. We should have started fighting back ten years ago.”

An Alternative Exists
As an alternative to the pro-abortion mentality in the leadership of the Girl Scouts of America, Patti Garibay, a former Girl Scout leader in Cincinnati, founded the national American Heritage Girls. It has troops in 32 states. Its program includes the Judeo-Christian values on which our country was founded. It strives to enhance the girls’ life experiences with fun-filled activities supervised by trained adults, supported by family members and to do all the things that Girl Scouting was originally founded to do.

In the National Girl Scout Promise, “I will try to serve God,” God now has an asterisk indicating that you can interpret this word anyway you wish and substitute it with any other word.” Patti Garibay said, “God in our lives is not optional. We believe that character building programs for youth, such as scouting, demands a moral compass. Our scouting programs are based on a philosophical basis of biblical truths and a continued commitment to assist girls as they grow in their relationship with Christ.” For more information, contact American Heritage Girls at www.ahgonline.org.

From The Executive Director
Bradley Mattes

Why It's So Important

As you read this, The US Senate and America at large are debating the second vacancy on the US Supreme Court. Media attention on filling this crucial position will be intense. Even the Katrina hurricane coverage couldn’t squelch the many hours news networks dedicated to the John Roberts hearings and votes. Expect an even more shrill debate with the O’Connor vacancy.

Why? Because Sandra Day O’Connor was a pro-abortion justice. She voted to reaffirm Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion-on-demand and unleashed a modern-day holocaust on our nation. Since then, over forty-five million babies have needlessly died for the sacred entitlement to so-called “reproductive rights.” In its wake, abortion has left millions of mothers and fathers in emotional turmoil and devastation. Only God knows the tally of chaotic fallout that has ensued since 1973 – suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, promiscuity, abuse of women and children, and the list goes on. We’d all be shaken to our core to fully realize the cost of human suffering abortion has wrought.

But why is the secular media so keenly intent on covering this Supreme Court story and trying to affect its outcome? Is keeping abortion legal throughout pregnancy that important to them? Well, yes and no. Legal abortion is certainly one of the mainstream media’s pet political issues. Pro-abortion Supreme Court justices would ensure that abortion-on-demand continues unabated.

However, the Supreme Court is the final authority on many social issues of monumental impact and importance on all of our lives. The Courts have advanced a liberal social agenda when elected legislative bodies have blocked it. Here’s a brief sampling of what the future agenda holds for the Supreme Court. These don’t all pertain to the life issues, but this short list will clearly demonstrate that the moral fabric of our society is at stake.

Partial-birth Abortion. The Eighth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a ban on this gruesome procedure, which kills babies during delivery, was unconstitutional. Justice O’Connor had previously voted to strike down this humane ban. A pro-life replacement to O’Connor would mean Partial-Birth Abortion could be stopped in America.

Parental Notification. The New Hampshire state legislature passed a law that requires a parent be notified before their minor daughter can undergo a surgical abortion. It didn’t require permission, but only notification. The First US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this unconstitutional and an “undue burden” on a minor’s right to abortion (previous wording by Justice O’Connor).

Physician-Assisted Suicide. Oregon legalized the use of federally controlled substances to be used for physician-assisted suicide. Those whose “quality of life” isn’t up to par are allowed to kill themselves with the help of a physician. The Bush administration is challenging Oregon’s law.

Pro-Life Picketing. The radical pro-abortion group, NOW, is trying to use racketeering laws to prevent peaceful pro-life picketers from exercising their first amendment rights. Lower courts have been reluctant to cooperate with two previous Supreme Court ruling in favor of the pro-lifers.

Other Social Issues. Some want to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance. In another case, some federally funded schools are protesting against the military’s ability to exclude openly homosexual soldiers, so they won’t let military recruiters have access to their campuses. In yet another, the Bush administration is challenging a church that wants to use hallucinogenic and potentially dangerous tea in its religious rituals.

Now imagine how many critical issues the Supreme Court will be facing in the next decade. The makeup of the Court will greatly affect your children and grandchildren for years to come.

How close are we to correcting Roe v. Wade? If we are successful in replacing Justice O’Connor with a pro-life justice, we will still need one more to retire Roe to the ash heap of history where it belongs. Don’t be fooled by pro-abortion activists and politicians that say this vacancy will tip the balance of power on the Court. We still need one more justice.

It’s also vitally important to realize that when Roe is ultimately corrected, it is far from the end of our battle to end abortion. A post-Roe society will simply place the authority of life or death over millions of unborn babies into the hands of state legislatures. Currently, only 7 states have laws on their books that will protect the unborn after Roe. They are Louisiana, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Arkansas, Michigan, Oklahoma and Wisconsin. Further, this only represents 10% of the nation’s population. Even after Roe, it is estimated one million babies will die from abortion every year.

Don’t lose hope. This is a huge step in the right direction! It will create a political environment where grassroots pro-life advocates can make substantial gains in protecting innocent unborn life. Correcting Roe isn’t the final answer, but we can’t save babies without it.

As you can see, so much is at stake. We must make sure solid, pro-life justices are seated on our nation’s highest court. Let your voice be heard! Contact your senators, tell your friends, family, coworkers, neighbors and fellow church members. The pro-life community must engage in this process and work to influence the final outcome. Quite literally, millions of babies are counting on YOU!

STATES EXCHANGE
The First Academic Curriculum on the Life Issues

Every day over 3,200 women choose abortion to resolve an unexpected pregnancy. Every day, the abortion industry cranks out, in assembly line fashion, thousands of mothers and fathers who will ultimately anguish over the life of their baby lost through abortion. Have you ever wanted to better equip yourself to help others faced with a crisis pregnancy or post-abortion stress? Have you wanted to get more involved but felt inadequate to assist them?

Master’s Divinity School now offers the first of its kind – undergraduate and graduate degrees in Life Issues Counseling. Counselors are armed with the tools necessary to change the hearts of abortion-minded women, as well as offer hope and healing to post-abortive parents.

The purpose of the program is to provide biblically based training for those who feel called to minister to those in crisis. It’s ideal for directors of women help centers, staff and volunteers. It’s also good for pastors, youth workers, biblical counselors, teachers, school administrators, nurses or physicians. This program is endorsed by Life Issues Institute. For more information go to www.lifeissues.org and click on the link on our homepage.

Don’t miss this exciting opportunity! An advanced accelerated learning seminar, called Responding to the Aftermath of Abortion, is being offered March 14-15 at Master’s Divinity School in Evansville, IN. The faculty includes Trudy Johnson, formerly with Focus on the Family, Bradley Mattes, Executive Director of Life Issues Institute and actress, author Jennifer O Neill. They will present a comprehensive course for credit on post-abortion counseling for both women and men. This hands-on course, also open to non-students, will help even the most seasoned counselor to be better equipped. Go to http://www.mdivs.edu/seminars.html for more details or phone 1.800.933.1445.

If you have a heart to assist others in crisis, or you’ve been looking for a way to enhance your skills to be even more effective, please consider pursuing Life Issues Counseling through Master’s Divinity School.