LifeNet

Westchester-Putnam Right to Life Committee

is the newly-named extension of the Westchester Right to Life Committee, an organization that took root in spontaneous response to 1970 New York State abortion law. Its early years included the hard work and dedication of many pro-lifers including Bob McKeon, Audrey Kelly, Mary Gormley, Liz Costanzo, Lillian Koegler, Pat Hatcher, the Martins, Ann Hannon, Martha McCauley, Corrine Spellman, Marie Williams, Bernie Tracy, Bill Sullivan and Msgr. Smith, to name but a few brave souls who dared change the face of the New York political scene in defense of life. Frank and Joan Allgaier, a talented lobbyist, worked to endorse candidates, along with Jim Corbett and Ed Riely. The perseverance of Eileen Kennedy and Gertrude Keogh brought this Committee to the present day. An early major accomplishment was the successful lawsuit against and closing of the Church Street abortion clinic in White Plains. WRTLC newsletters were also sent to every church in Westchester; thousands were distributed along with political materials under the Committee’s PAC. The Committee’s hard work paid off with years of successful education and legislative activities. Most recently the WRTLC co-sponsored the NYSRTLC Convention here in Westchester in the fall of 2006, partnering with People for Life in White Plains and Katonah’s Center for Life.

People for Life soon combined efforts with the WRTLC whose December newsletter announced the transition, its new name, its closer ties with Putnam County, and its new chairman, Alan Mehldau. W-PRTLC meets regularly, at St. Bernard’s Church meeting room in White Plains at 10 a.m. (Mass 9 a.m.).

The Westchester-Putnam Right to Life Committee Political Action Committee will be holding a Gala fundraiser on Thursday evening September 27th at the Davenport Club in New Rochelle. We will be posting more information, and a flyer is contained in the May-June issue of LifeNet with more details. 

Women's Equality Day Reformed - Friday, August 10, 2007 - 6th Annual Celebration and Award Ceremony

    REMEMBERING THE 87th ANNIVERSARY OF WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE (August 26)

  Theme: Women Helping Women

  Michaelian Bldg, 8^th Floor Conference Room

148 Martine Avenue (at Court Street) White Plains

Gather 11:30 a.m. - Ceremony 12 Noon, Sharp!

2007 Honoree 

Gabrielle Long Wright, CNM

Certified Registered Nurse/Midwife

For more info Call Regina 739-8256 or Judith 271-4627

Please bring photo ID for County building security check

Seek long-term, 3 hour parking – metered garage across street

Question: Does it make sense to join the Republican Party so you can vote for a prolifer in the Presidential Primary? Here's what Ed Riely thinks -

Me, Join the Republican Party?????

There is a valid strategy floating around suggesting that serious, uncompromising pro-lifers switch their voter affiliation to the Republican Party. As a Right to Life Party member who was recently transferred to the Independent ranks against my will, I have thought of doing this myself. As you might know, last summer in spite of a Herculean effort by Westchester pro-life workers, we failed to get enough signatures on a statewide basis in the Gubernatorial election (which occurs once every four years) to keep our party automatically on the ballot, hence we failed to keep our 40,000 people registered as members of The Right to Life Party of NYS. However, we did keep our Right to Life Party on the local ballot because of our own local petition efforts.

So County election officials in the 62 counties throughout the State have sent cards to our voters automatically changing their registration to Independent, which is a non-party affiliation status. This is not to be confused with the cynical Independence Party (the Galisano and Perot party, standing for nothing of substance).

            Let’s get back to the title at hand. Many currently see State and local Republican parties as corrupt, leaderless, valueless, visionless, prone to nepotism and ripe for takeovers as their patronage and influence disappear into political oblivion with the selfish turncoat, pro-abortionist George Pataki. If not takeover, perhaps they can be steered in a pro-life direction if we guide them or work within them. First remember, as a member of a party or not, you have the power to influence the outcome of an election and get your message across. Think about it! You have the power to speak in public forums; you have the right to carry political petitions; and, you have the freedom to pamphleteer.

Well what about this Republican idea? Remember, this political party is founded on pro-life principles, churchgoers, and people who believe in the right to bear arms. Take these constituencies away from them and Republicans lose! That’s how we helped sink Nick Spano, the State’s third most powerful Republican legislator. We helped to take away his base, we encouraged the base to write in our candidate, and equally effective, we suggested that they stop voting (for candidates) in the middle of the ballot line.

            Your transition to Republican need not be permanent and certainly does not mean you will be inactive. To the contrary, we are working as you read and we are working as hard as ever to give people a pro-lifer to vote for, and to show people how to always have a pro-lifer to vote for; it’s called a write-in and it can be organized or informal. Our second goal is to vigorously influence the political process in our area by any and every means at our disposal.

Is switching to the Republican Party a bad idea? No, it is a good idea for politically savvy, unsentimental, hardcore pro-life voters willing to switch out at any time; generous citizens who are not swayed by unimportant, or much less important, issues regardless of their cultural and social sympathies. Tough people who are more or less immune to the acknowledged attractiveness, practiced charm, cultured smoothness and saccharine lies of politicos can handle such a switch, and I recommend it to them.

        But be fleet of foot and nimble of pen and keep your re-registration card handy. Just like politicians will always elbow their way to the head of someone else’s parade and then claim credit for organizing it, as soon as you create something good, the wrong people will start to show up and takeover. It seems to me a pro-lifer should be slow to give their word, be judicious with their political commitments and their political promises because, by definition, this is a bad neighborhood.

            So, do it if you must and we wish you success and we will help you, but don’t do it just to vote in a Presidential political primary. That’s ridiculous! You can work for any candidate in any primary or any general election regardless of how you are personally registered, and you are savvy enough to figure out how to do that.

If you are going to be a pro-life Republican for awhile, CHANGE NOW or you’ll miss all the

election and registration deadlines. Any questions, call your County Board of Elections.

* Question: “How do you feel about the Democratic Party?”

I wish all pro-life Democrats “Godspeed”. They have an almost impossible task. The Democratic Party is the party associated with Slavery, the party of Abortion, the Party of Moral Decadence, and the party of big city Political Corruption. Everyone registered in any party has the moral obligation to work to change that party to good. If not, you have lent your name to a morally scandalous institution and its representatives, and have sinfully done nothing to change its course.

                                                                                Edmund P. Riely Jr., Pro-Life Organizer 26 June 2007

British Healthcare - headed toward rationed care

Wesley Smith has an interesting post on the healthcare mess in Britain

Secondhand Smoke: Brave New Britain: Here Comes Health Care Rationing

The UK's National Health Care service is such a mess that some are now openly calling for explicit health care rationing. (Of course, ad hoc or sub rosa rationing already exists within the NHS.) One idea, according to this article in the Scotsman, is to make up a list of treatments that would be provided

Annual July Fourth Vigil for Life at the Stony Point Marian Shrine

"We are endowed by our Creator with the inalienable right to life..."

Always a wonderful way to spend part of the 4th! About twenty minutes from the Tappan Zee Bridge.

This annual Vigil is sponsored by the Rockland County Helpers of God's Precious Infants.

The Schedule is:

10:00 AM Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament

11:15 Rosary

12:00 Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

And Sacrament of Reconciliation will be available during the morning.

Directions to Marian Shrine:

Palisades Pkway. North to exit 14. Make a right to Stop sign. Go through stop sign and Marian Shrine will be on your right approximately 3.4 mile.

-OR-

Route 9W. Northbound make a left onto Filors Lane; the Marian Shrine is approximately one mile on the left.

For more information, call 845-735-6970

insight into what a nonprofit, tax exempt organization can and cannot do politically

Some have questioned what the Hudson Valley Coalition for Life can do regarding endorsing and promoting political candidates.

As a 501c4 organization, as long as political advocacy is not our main purpose, we are within our rights to endorse and promote candidates for office.

Here is a posting with a link and extensive excerpts from a NY Times feature today, that shows a political candidate who has violated the letter and spirit of the law regarding nonprofit, tax exempt entities.

Tom Faranda's Folly: The NY Times on John Edwards use of nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations to fund his political ambitions

Wall Street Journal op ed - abortion has increased the number of out of wedlock births

The Wall Street Journal had an excellent op ed yesterday, which is posted on their free opinionjournal site.

It's Not Enough to be "Wanted"  OpinionJournal - Extra

Many academic studies have shown that legalized abortion, by encouraging premarital sex, increased the number of unplanned births, even outweighing the reduction in unplanned births due to abortion. In the United States from the early 1970s, when abortion was liberalized, through the late 1980s, there was a tremendous increase in the rate of out-of-wedlock births, rising from an average of 5% of all births in 1965-69 to more than 16% two decades later (1985-1989). For blacks, the numbers soared from 35% to 62%. While not all of this rise can be attributed to liberalized abortion rules, it was nevertheless a key contributing factor.

With legalization and women not forced to go through with an unplanned pregnancy, a man might well expect his partner to have an abortion if a sexual encounter results in an unplanned pregnancy. But what happens if the woman refuses? Maybe she is morally opposed to abortion; or perhaps she thought she could have an abortion, but upon becoming pregnant, she decides that she can't go through with it. What happens then?

Many men, feeling tricked into unwanted fatherhood, will likely wash their hands of the affair altogether, thinking, "I never wanted a baby. It's her choice, so let her raise the baby herself." What is expected of men in this position has changed dramatically in the last four decades. The evidence shows that the greater availability of abortion largely ended "shotgun" marriages, where men felt obligated to marrying the woman.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

From the beginning of the abortion debate, those favoring abortion have pointed to the social costs of "unwanted" children who simply won't get the attention of "wanted" ones. But there is a trade-off that has long been neglected. Abortion may eliminate "unwanted" children, but it increases out-of-wedlock births and single parenthood. Unfortunately, the social consequences of illegitimacy dominated.

Children born after liberalized abortion rules have suffered a series of problems from problems at school to more crime. The saddest fact is that it is the most vulnerable in society, poor blacks, who have suffered the most from these changes.

More on Amnesty International adoption of pro-abortion position; Irish section rejects abortion move

This is from "Lifezine", the Irish prolife presence online

The news that Amnesty International (AI) in Ireland is to resist the move of its parent organization to take a pro-abortion stance is to be welcomed. As we mentioned in a recent “LifeZine” (http://www.familyandlife.org/Irish-news-200.html), AI has finally admitted it has adopted a new policy supporting abortion. Despite this change, Amnesty members in Ireland are to resist moves to promote abortion as a human right. Roxanne Macara of Amnesty Ireland said “during the course of the debate on this issue within the Irish Section, it has been clear that the membership of the Section did not wish to see a change in Amnesty’s neutral stance on abortion.” She said that the board of Amnesty Ireland has made this view clear to the international movement. Ms Macara said that “the Irish Section will continue to express the view of our membership” and that Amnesty in Ireland “will not be working on the issue of access to abortion”.

Amnesty International and Catholics

As we have previously posted,  LifeNet: Amnesty International to support the "right to abortion?"  and LifeNet: Amnesty International opting for abortion   Amnesty International has changed their position on abortion from one of neutrality to one of being pro-abortion. Here is a good article on the Catholic perspective on this, with quotes from Jesuit Dan Berrigan, who used to be an Amnesty International supporter. Very few people are aware of the fact that Berrigan, a well-known figure in the anti-war movement during the Vietnam era, has been arrested for protesting at abortion mills.

Excerpts are below, but we urge you to hit the link for the full article.

No Amnesty for the Unborn National Catholic Register

LONDON — Abortion has driven a wedge between the Catholic Church and an organization that began as an ally.

Amnesty International (AI) was founded in 1961 by Peter Benenson, a British convert to Catholicism. But today, as a result of Amnesty International’s recent decision to promote abortion rights, Church leaders say that Catholics should withdraw all financial support from the London-based human-rights organization.

“I believe that, if in fact Amnesty International persists in this course of action, individuals and Catholic organizations must withdraw their support, because, in deciding to promote abortion rights, AI has betrayed its mission,” Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said in an e-mail interview.

The abortion policy has already cost Amnesty International the support of one long-time Catholic backer: Jesuit Father Daniel Berrigan.

Said Father Berrigan, “One cannot support an organization financially or even individually that is contravening something very serious in our ethic.”

Such a reaction from a human rights activist doesn’t surprise Cardinal Martino. Amnesty International “has betrayed all of its faithful supporters throughout the years,” he said, “both individuals and organizations, who have trusted AI for its integral mission of promoting and protecting human rights.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Father Berrigan said he first became acquainted with Amnesty’s work in the 1960s, when the newly formed group launched a campaign on behalf of Archbishop Josef Beran of Prague, who was imprisoned by Czechoslovakia’s Communist government after he spoke out against government abuses.

“I was very moved with the international activity on behalf of powerless people,” Father Berrigan said. And, he added, no one is more powerless than unborn children in the womb who are at risk of being killed by abortion.

Father Berrigan emphatically agreed with Cardinal Martino’s statement that individual Catholics and Catholic organizations should withdraw all support for Amnesty International if it doesn’t reverse its decision to advocate for abortion rights.

“I’ve supported over the years Amnesty’s take on prisoners of conscience around the world, and have been a member of Amnesty,” he said. “And I was quite shaken by this change.”

Philadelphia City Council rescinds previous pro-abortion statement

Council repeals 'pro-choice city' resolution | Inquirer | 06/15/2007

City Council yesterday rescinded its week-old proclamation that Philadelphia is a "pro-choice city," putting an end to a purely symbolic debate that drew the attention of Cardinal Justin Rigali and roiled Council as few other issues had in months.

The original resolution, passed by a narrow 9-8 vote, was repealed by a vote of 13-4. Five Council members flipped sides after public criticism and Rigali's objections.

Sponsored by Democratic Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown, the resolution stated that Philadelphia supports "women's reproductive rights and freedom" and defends "the right to choose a legal and safe abortion as a final but critical option for women."

Like most Council proclamations, the resolution would have had no impact on city policy, but that didn't stop Council members from spending considerable time weighing it in their final week before the summer recess.

"I'm angry with myself for not abstaining," said Councilman Jim Kenney, who last week voted for the resolution. "It's not something I think we should have forced on the public at large."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The vote was a disappointment to Dayle Steinberg, president and chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, which had helped Brown develop the resolution."It's unfortunate that there couldn't be an agreement to support the rights of women and families in Philadelphia," Steinberg said.

Planned Parenthood annual report

Here is the report.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/Annual_report.pdf

Over 264,000 abortions. Donor funding down. Taxpayer funding up. Large increase in Assets (called profit in the for-profit world; Planned Parenthood is "non-profit". So why large increase in assets?).

Not one word in the 20 page report about adoption. The word never appears.

The "not for profit" Planned Parenthood turns millions in profits and their taxpayer-subsidized bank account just keeps getting bigger

What other non-profit has this kind of balance sheet?

Press release from Life Decisions International
June 8, 2007

“If the current trend continues, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc. will command a budget of more than $1 billion in three years,” warned Douglas R. Scott Jr., president of Life Decisions International, in 2006. While Planned Parenthood’s budget continues to soar, the pace has slowed -- and rather significantly.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) generated $902.8 million in fiscal year 2005-2006, which is an increase of 2.4 percent over the previous reporting period. In fiscal year 2004-2005, PPFA's income rose a whopping 8.4 percent.

While the rate of PPFA’s massive budget increases has slowed, the amount the abortion-committing goliath generates from American taxpayers has risen by a staggering 10.75 percent. In the 2004-2005 fiscal year, the elected representatives of American taxpayers gave $272.7 million to Planned Parenthood, which represented 30.9 percent of its overall budget. In the 2005-2006 fiscal year, American taxpayers provided more than a third of the behemoth's budget ($305.3 million).

"This 'not-for-profit' entity ends every fiscal year with tens of millions of dollars in 'excess revenue over expenses,'" Scott said, "which is known to regular people as 'profit.'" The "excess" for 2004-2005 alone was $63 million. In 2005-2006 alone, the excess was $55.8 million.

On June 30, 2006, PPFA had net assets valued at $839.8 million, of which $330.9 million was unrestricted and another $116.6 million was temporarily restricted. "This is essentially a savings account," Scott explained. "The money is sitting in a bank and drawing interest that will further advance Planned Parenthood's deadly agenda. Despite these huge sums, the corporation's hierarchy incessantly claims to need more and more tax dollars," Scott said.

The most proficient abortion machine in the United States, PPFA admits to killing 264,943 preborn human beings in 2005 alone (up 3.9 percent from 2004), generating an estimated $100 million. In 2004, a scant 1,414 customers were referred to adoption agencies, down more than 20 percent from 2003. PPFA reported no referrals to adoption agencies in 2005. "In fact, you will not find the word 'adoption' anywhere in PPFA's 2005-2006 Annual Report," Scott said.

PPFA claims to prevent the "need" for abortion while simultaneously working to increase its share of the lucrative abortion market. In 1984, PPFA committed just over 5.5 percent of all abortions in the United States. By 2004 that figure had risen to nearly 20 percent.

PPFA sold 1,245,506 "emergency" birth control kits in 2005 (nearly 26.6 percent more than in 2004). Every PPFA "clinic" dispenses "emergency" birth control. Most prescribe it over the phone and accept orders over the Internet, without an exam. In the vast majority of cases, "emergency" birth control causes an abortion, but Planned Parenthood wrongly and intentionally claims the drugs are "contraception."

An affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, PPFA describes itself as the world's oldest and largest "reproductive health care" business. Founded in 1916 by elitist and eugenics advocate Margaret Higgins Sanger, it began as the nation's first birth control facility.

PPFA argues that "everyone has the right to choose when or whether to have a child." It pushes for laws and constitutional amendments that guarantee "reproductive freedom," a phrase encompassing unlimited birth control and abortion for everyone, no matter how young.

Life Decisions International will publish an analysis of PPFA's Annual Report in the July-August edition of its newsletter, The Caleb Report. Information about PPFA "services" may be found in the May-June edition.

LA Times on pro-lifers feuding over strategy: incremental v. all or nothing. AND a graph of the downward abortion trend

Below the link is the first part of the feature article. Hit the link for the complete article. you may have to register with the LA Times, but it is free and easy.

For some, antiabortion is all or nothing - Los Angeles Times

As they gathered Tuesday for a national strategy session, antiabortion activists faced an unexpected revolt in their own ranks.

Some of the biggest groups in the movement, including Focus on the Family and National Right to Life, are under attack from fellow activists who accuse them of turning a godly cause into a money-grubbing industry.

Those groups have raised tens of millions of dollars and trumpeted victory after incremental victory in the 34 years since Roe vs. Wade legalized abortions. But about 1 in every 5 pregnancies in the U.S. still ends in abortion. Deeply frustrated, several small antiabortion groups have launched a campaign to force their movement back to an absolutist position: No more compromises, no more half-steps, just an all-out effort for an all-out ban.

They are making their position clear in full-page ads that will run in conservative publications over the next few months. They are urging donors to stop contributing to groups that focus on making it more difficult — but not impossible — for women to obtain abortions.

"The broader movement is claiming that we're saving lives, and we're not," said Brian Rohrbough, one of the dissident activists. "It can't get any worse than that."

Tension between the incremental and absolutist camps has existed in the antiabortion movement from the beginning. It's bursting into the open now in part because of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

In April, the justices upheld a federal law banning a rare midterm procedure that involves partly delivering a live fetus then crushing its skull. The ruling was striking for several reasons. For the first time, the Supreme Court approved a restriction on abortion that contained no exceptions, not even for the health of the woman. And the justices adopted antiabortion rhetoric in key portions of the majority opinion.

Besides the article, the LA times has an interesting graphic showing the decline in the abortion rate. See it here:
Downward trend

Australian Bishop - on denying communion and excommunication for Catholic politicians who support embryo destruction

Archbishop Pell of Sydney -

Australia Catholic Bishop Mentions Excommunication on Stem Cell Research

"It is a serious moral matter and Catholic politicians who vote for this legislation must realize that their voting has consequences for the place in the life of the Church," Pell told the ABC media outlet.

"I don't think that any Catholic politician, any Christian politician, any pro-life politician who has properly informed his or her conscience should vote for these changes," the bishop added.

Pell told ABC he's not suggesting politicians will be excommunicated, but is leaving open the option of denying communion.

"I don't believe in crossing bridges before you get to them and I am hoping all the Catholic politicians here in New South Wales will do the right thing," he said.