GOV SPITIZER D NY

New York states Catholic bishops had a long-awaited appointment with Gov. Eliot Spitzer at the state Capitol in Albany on Monday at 3 p.m. to protest his pending abortion rights legislation. For some reason, it kept getting put off, and Cardinal Edward Egan and fellow bishops were left to wonder why. They were told at one point that the lieutenant-governor, David Paterson, would meet with them. But that failed to come through. They were finally able to deduce the problem after a New York Times report on the Web indicated that Spitzer was occupied with other worries. Spitzers legislation would declare abortion a fundamental right. The New York State Catholic Conference argues that state regulators could use such a radical law to coerce Catholic hospitals to provide abortions. Spitzer said that was an exaggeration, according to The Times. (The proposed statute contains language declaring that the state shall not discriminate against the exercise of the rights to abortion and contraception in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services or information. What does that mean?) Spitzer is not one to walk away from a fight. New York is 39 percent Catholic, according to the recent Pew survey on the U.S. Religious Landscape. The only way Spitzer really can pass the abortion-rights bill is if the Democrats win long-sought control of the State Senate from Republicans . The Dems are within one seat of doing that, and controlling the Legislature. So Spitzer would make abortion a key issue in the state legislative campaign this fall. In nominating Spitzer for governor, New York Democrats had rejected Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi, who had gotten national attention for proposing ways to reduce the number of abortions. Will the next governor be more conciliatory on abortion than Spitzer has been?

The Guttmacher Institute, research affiliate of Planned Parenthood, has helped write a new study in a British journal called The Lancet, and the New York Times is excited: A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it. Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely (Oct. 12). Some news media tend to lose their critical faculties when presented with the opportunity for a breathless headline on abortion. In this case the basic finding of the study is reported accurately (though without the skepticism that should greet abortion news from the abortion industry), followed by two conclusions that are spin, not fact. The Lancet study did find similar abortion rates in countries with anti-abortion laws and those without. However, the former countries tend to be Third World countries with grinding poverty, an unstable society and an inadequate health care system, and these of course place enormous pressure on women. Within the United States, where abortion is legal for all women, abortion rates are much higher among low-income and racial minority women not because they are less moral, or care less about the law, but because they are so seldom offered another choice. This does not mean that abortion rates are unaffected by the law. The opposite has been proven again and again in the U.S., as even very modest laws (laws for parental involvement in the case of minors, bans on public funding, etc.) have significantly reduced abortion rates in recent years. So the second half of the Times lead sentence is misleading and false. Finally, the Lancet study did not find that legalizing abortion makes it safe. That was not the subject of the study. The researchers found no reliable way to count unsafe abortions directly, so for purposes of the study they simply defined safe abortions as those that meet legal requirements in countries where abortion is generally legal. They never found legal abortions to be safe, but assumed this in order to study something else. In effect, safe became a euphemism for legal. A legal abortion was counted as safe even if it killed the woman; an illegal abortion was called unsafe and harmful even if no woman was harmed. This is stated explicitly in the study, which the Times perhaps did not bother to read. In fact, studies in this issue of The Lancet note that Peru, the Philippines and Sri Lanka have all dramatically reduced maternal mortality in recent years, without changing their strong laws against abortion. Keys to success in Sri Lanka included an improved health system, skilled birth attendants, and improved status and literacy for women factors long promoted by the Holy See at United Nations conferences. There are many ways to help women be safe, without urging them to destroy their children. The central finding of the Lancet study is actually that the total worldwide abortion rate, including unsafe (that is, illegal) abortions, went down between 1995 and 2003. Women globally are turning away from abortion, especially when they are offered better choices. You wont find that conclusion in the New York Times.

JESUS IS WEEPING

Abortion Methods Described (Plus, Misleading Claims about Abortion) Suction Abortion: Used during the first three months of pregnancy - A suction tube (27 times stronger than a home vacuum cleaner) is inserted into the womb. The powerful suction tears the baby apart limb from limb and sucks it from the womb along with the placenta. The baby's remains are deposited into an attached waste bottle. Dilation and Curettage (D&C): Used at the end of the third month of pregnancy (approximately 12 weeks) - The cervix is dialated, ring forceps are inserted into the womb and the baby is extracted piece by piece. Then a curette (a sharp knife in a loop shape) is inserted and used to scrape away any of the baby or the placenta that remains. Profuse bleeding follows. Dilation and Extraction (D&E): Used after 13 weeks - The cervix is dialated and the unborn child is dismembered with plier-like forceps. Force is needed to pull the baby apart. The instrument is used to seize a leg or other part of the body and then, with a twisting motion, tear it from the baby's body. The baby's spine is snapped and the skull crushed. After the baby parts are removed, they are reassembled outside the womb to be sure all are removed. Frequently baby parts are left inside the mother's womb. This can cause serious complications and sometimes death. Help is available for women who have been injured by abortion or for the families of women who have died from abortion. You can read about tragic abortion injury cases and find out who to call for legal help by clicking: Abortion Injuries or Deaths? Call: 1-800-U-CAN-SUE. Partial-Birth Abortion: Partial-Birth Abortions are used from the 4th month through the end of the 9th month of pregnancy. These late-term abortions are regularly used to kill healthy babies that pose no danger or threat to their mother. For this abortion, the abortionist uses ultrasound to locate the unborn baby's legs. Forceps are then used to pull the baby's legs through the birth canal, delivering the baby feet first, except for the head. Scissors are then used to puncture the base of the back of the head. A suction device is then inserted to suction out the baby's brain so the skull will easily collapse. The dead baby is then removed. Congress and the Senate voted twice to outlaw these gruesome abortions. Unfortunately, President Clinton wants them to remain legal and he vetoed the bill both times the legislation was sent to him for his signature. Because of President Clinton's two vetoes, this horrifying method of child-killing remains legal today. Why would Clinton veto a ban on Partial-Birth Abortion when so many doctors and medical professionals were recommending that they be outlawed? The American medical Association's Council on Legislation voted UNANIMOUSLY to recommend to the AMA Board of Trustees to endorse the Ban on Partial-Birth Abortions. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, along with hundreds of physicians and the Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT) said that this "procedure" is never necessary to save the life of the mother. Dr. Nancy Romer, FACOG, Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Miami Valley Hospital in Ohio said, "People deserve to know that the partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated either to save the health of a woman or preserve her future fertility." Dr. Martin Haskell, an abortionist who specializes in these late-term abortions, has admitted to performing over 1,000 of these abortions. He stated in a recorded interview with the American Medical News (the official newspaper of the AMA) that: "In my particular case, probably 20% (of these procedures) are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective." That means in 80% (that's over 800 babies) there was no health risk for the mother and the baby had no handicaps. It has been documented that thousands of these abortions are performed each year. A New Jersey newspaper reporter with the Bergen County Record discovered and reported that 1,500 babies are killed each year by partial-birth abortion at one New Jersey "Hospital" alone. It's hard to know exactly how many of these abortions are performed each year, but we do know that the Centers for Disease Control reported there are over 17,000 abortions performed each year on babies older than 4 1/2 months gestation. Whether it's partial-birth abortion, or some other barbaric method, it's a tragic holocaust. If you would like to voice your outrage over these late-term abortions, please call the abortion telephone poll at 1-900-PRO-LIFE. You can find information about the telephone poll on our website by clicking 1-900-PRO-LIFE telephone poll. Saline amniocentesis: Used after 16 weeks - A concentrated salt solution is injected with an amniocenteses needle into the amniotic fluid. The baby breathes and swallows it and dies over an hour later of acute salt poisoning. The mother then delivers a dead burned baby. Use has declined because of dangers for the mother and sometimes the baby survives. Prostaglandin: Used late-term - Prostaglandin is injected into the amniotic sac causing premature labor and delivery of a dead baby. Inter-cardiac injections: Poison is injected into the chest or heart of the fetus via a long needle inserted through the mothers abdomen. The dead baby is absorbed. Sometimes this results in the loss of all the babies when using this method for "pregnancy reduction" with multi-fetal pregnancies. Chemical Abortions: The Pill, RU486, methotrexate, Norplant, IUDs, prostaglandins, and Depo Provera all cause early abortions. You may not be aware of the fact that the Pill has a "back up" abortifacient action that works to kill a baby very early in its development if ovulation occurs and conception takes place. With some of the new "mini-pills," scientific research shows that ovulation takes place in 67-81% of the women who use these "birth control pills." Dr. Ronald Chez, a scientist at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), publicly stated that the new Pills of today, with their lower estrogen dose, allow ovulation up to 50% of the time! It is estimated that Chemical "Contraceptives" cause between 7 to 12 million early abortions each year in America (Source: Study of Abortion Deaths Ad Hoc Commission 1995). Most women using the Pill (and other "birth control" methods listed above) do not know they can become pregnant and have early abortions. To find out more about the Pill and other chemicals that cause early abortions, click on: "Birth Control Abortions". Misleading Claims about Abortion . . . Claim: "It's my body." Answer: A woman's body does not have two beating hearts, two blood types, two heads, four eyes, four arms, and four legs. A pregnant woman and her baby have all this and more. And what about when she's pregnant with a male baby? That's not her body . . . it's a unique, baby boy growing in her womb. Claim: "It's only a fetus." Answer: FACT: A fetus is a human being..... Fetus -- literally meaning "little one" in Latin -- refers to the pre-born baby after eight week's gestation. Webster's Dictionary says a fetus has, "passed the early stages of development and attained the basic final form prior to parturition (birth)." Some people seem to have forgotten they once lived and grew in the womb as a "fetus." Would it have been okay if they had been aborted when they were "only a fetus?" Claim: "Abortion is legal, therefore, it must be right." Answer: The U.S. Supreme Court has been wrong on many major decisions and then overturned itself. Remember the Dred Scott case on slavery? If the Supreme Court suddenly declared child abuse or rape legal, would that make them right? Would we ignore such injustices and do nothing to protect the innocent? Claim: "Freedom of Choice" - It's a woman's "right to choose!" Answer: How can anyone claim they have the "freedom" or "right" to kill an innocent baby? The only "choice" in abortion is between a dead baby and a live baby. Furthermore, advocates who defend this "choice" are not consistent. Why is it only in the case of abortion they argue that "choice" should be absolute? Using the same rationale, wouldn't people have the right to "choose" to use drugs ("it's my body") or the right to "choose" to practice prostitution? Humane societies don't tell people they have a "Freedom of Choice" to kill their own children. There are right choices and wrong choices. In recent history, millions of innocent people died because of terribly wrong choices which slave owners and Nazis thought they had a "right" to make. Terrible choices have led to dead slaves, dead Jews, and dead babies. Claim: "The government shouldn't interfere." Answer: Our Declaration of Independence declares that each of us has an "inalienable right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Thomas Jefferson defined government's role, "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government." Government should protect all of us, especially before we are born, when we are most vulnerable. Claim: "Poor women need public funds (your tax money) to pay for abortions so they're not be discriminated against." Answer: The rich can readily afford cocaine and prostitutes. Should taxpayers also be forced to buy these for the poor? The bottom line is that abortion is the worst form of child abuse. It kills a baby and wounds the mother for life. If the poor cannot afford abortions, they and their children are blessed not to become victims of this bloody holocaust. Claim: "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I would not impose my morality on others." Answer: What about other moral issues like rape, robbery, child abuse, arson and murder? What if politicians said, "I'm personally opposed, but . .. ." They'd be kicked out of office on the spot! What about slavery? If abolitionists had bought this "personally opposed, but" argument, some states could still be saddled with slavery today. Every law ever passed sets standards which reflect someone's (or a body of lawmakers') morality. A politician who won't vote against something he/she is morally opposed to doesn't have an ounce of honesty in his/her blood. Claim: Privacy - "In 1973, The Supreme Court said women have a "constitutional right" to privacy on abortion." Answer: The Court has been wrong before and it is wrong on this decision. Nobody has a right to injure or kill another person "privately." Does a "right to privacy" also protect parents who abuse, molest or kill their born children in the "privacy" of their home? Why not? What about their "privacy?" How is it that Roe v. Wade determined that unborn children are not "persons" even though they have the right to inherit property, the right to be protected from a drug-addicted mother, the right not to be killed by a drunk driver, and many other rights. Some states have entire sections of law outlining Crimes Against Unborn Children in which they are protected from negligent or willful harm or death from conception on. Claim: "Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade aren't comparable." Answer: Yes, they are comparable in that the Supreme Court was wrong to deny inalienable rights in both cases. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 upheld slavery as legal. That was wrong. It decreed that black people are the private property of the slave owners. This was a grave error made by the Supreme Court, denying African-Americans one of their most fundamental human rights -- the right to Liberty. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court erred again by denying a whole class of human beings (pre-born babies) the most fundamental right -- the right to Life. Claim: "If legal abortions are banned, women will resort to dangerous back alley abortions." Answer: In 1972, the year before the Supreme Court legalized abortion, a total of 39 women died from illegal abortions, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League), admits his group lied and inflated the number of women who died from illegal abortion when testifying before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972: "We spoke of 5,000 - 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew the figures were totally false . . . it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?" Claims that abortion became safer for women after it was legalized fail to acknowledge that large numbers of women are physically injured or killed by so-called "safe and legal" abortions every year. The book "Lime 5" documents 230 cases of women injured or killed by abortion or sexually assaulted by their abortionists (see page 18 and www.prolife.com for details). Former abortion provider Carol Everett states, "In the last 18 months I was in business (Everett ran four abortion centers in Texas in 1982), we were completing 500 abortions monthly and killing or maiming one woman out of 500." Claim: Rape & incest - "Abortion should be legal to end a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest." Answer: It's important to remember that the child conceived in rape, or incest, is no less human than any other child. Dr. David Reardon (www.afterabortion.com) points out that abortion is the very worst "solution" that can be offered to the pregnant woman at this crisis time in her life. Abortion compounds her problems. Abortion makes her an aggressor against her own innocent child and it never makes the painful memories of rape go away. If a small child were killed in the street by a negligent driver and it was later determined that the child had been conceived in rape, would the driver be held less responsible? Is that child's death less tragic? Claim: "It's a woman's issue. Men should have no say." Answer: Every baby has a mother and a father. Why should fathers be denied their parental rights? Men have a natural instinct to defend the innocent and the weak. More than half of America's pro-life movement is made up of women who want men to join their cause. Many women became pro-life after discovering their abortion was a terrible mistake. They know how painful abortion is from first hand experience and many ask men to get involved so fewer women and babies will become victims of abortion.

Federal laws, and many state laws, make it illegal to buy or sell human bodies or body parts. However, they can be legally donated for medical research and certain other legitimate purposes. In such cases, the supplier is allowed to recover from the recipient any reasonable out-of-pocket expenses that were necessary to fill the recipient's order. Some abortion industry insiders, wanting to financially profit on the growing market for fetal tissue and body parts, have devised a scheme to circumvent these restrictions. This is how the system works: 1) A baby parts "wholesaler" enters into a financial agreement with an abortion clinic in which the wholesaler pays a monthly "site fee" to the clinic. For this payment, the wholesaler is allowed to place a retrieval agent inside the clinic where he or she is given access to the corpses of children killed there and a workspace to harvest their parts. In most cases, this retrieval agent is an employee of the wholesaler. In other instances, the retrieval agent is a clinic employee who was trained by the wholesaler. 2) The buyer - usually a researcher working for a medical school, pharmaceutical company, bio-tech company or government agency - supplies the wholesaler with a list of the baby parts wanted. 3) When such orders are received by the wholesaler, they are faxed to the retrieval agent at the clinic who harvests the requested parts and ships them to the buyer via FedEx, Airborne or a similar common carrier. 4) These parts are "donated" by the clinic to the wholesaler who turns around and "donates" them to the buyer. The buyer then "reimburses" the wholesaler for the cost of retrieving the parts. On the surface, this system does not appear to violate the legal prohibitions against trafficking in human body parts since, technically speaking, no one is buying or selling anything. The loophole is that site fees and retrieval reimbursement amounts are unregulated. The law requires that such payments be reasonable and reflect the actual cost of securing the parts, but there are no state or federal laws which establish guidelines or sets limits regarding these payments. Additionally, no governmental or law enforcement agency is charged with overseeing the system. This means that the wholesaler is free to set site fees and retrieval fees at any amount. Despite the fact that the baby parts business is teeming with profound moral implications, and despite the fact it has enormous potential for financial abuse, it is allowed to operate on the honor system. It is certainly no secret that this sort of self-policing never works in environments where large amounts of money are involved. In this case, the result is that the corpses of children killed by elective abortion are now marketed like old car parts salvaged from the local junkyard. Rhetoric like "site fees," "donations," and "retrieval reimbursement costs" are simply code words designed to conceal that fact.

Meet The Obamas As the Obama juggernaut continues to press on, I thought it would be useful to continue our look at the Democrat frontrunner and the would-be first lady, Michelle Obama, as both are making headlines. First, the candidate and his record. National Journal, a respected non-partisan political magazine, recently published its 2007 Vote Ratings. The ratings employ computer-assisted analysis to examine and rank congressional votes. And you may be surprised to know who came in as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. Hillary Clinton? Nope. Ted Kennedy? No. John Kerry? Wrong. According to National Journal's rankings, which analyzed 99 key Senate votes, the most liberal senator in 2007 was Barack Obama, who took the liberal position on 65 of the 66 key votes on which he voted. On Campaign for Working Families' Congressional Scorecard, Obama has cast only one conservative vote out of 48 key votes we have tracked since he joined the Senate in 2005. That would give him a 2% pro-family score with CWF! Hillary is only marginally better, at 5%, with four extra years of service. The release of National Journal's scorecard was well-timed coming as Obama was comparing himself favorably to President Ronald Reagan, and as some conservatives are even praising Obama for his charm and vision. I suppose these qualities are refreshing when Obama is compared with his primary rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton! Folks who listen to Obama speak may feel uplifted and inspired, but there is rarely anything substantive in his speeches. Obama often does not go into detail about his political views or public policy record, preferring instead to present abstract visions of unity and hope for the future. If he did go into detail, he would surely put off most Republicans, not to mention many Independents and moderate Democrats. In fact, we may see blue collar Democrats coming back to the GOP this year, as they did in 1980 and 1984. Polls indicate Barack Obama's chances of winning the Democrat presidential nomination are on the rise, and he may well be that party's nominee this fall. It is therefore high time that voters look beyond the rhetoric and take a good look at the record of the U.S. Senate's most liberal member. Michelle Obama And America Michelle Obama, wife of Democrat frontrunner Barack Obama, shocked a lot of people over the weekend when she said this: "For the first time in my adult lifetime I am proud of my country." Wow! That takes my breath away. Mrs. Obama is 44 years old, so for over roughly 24 years of "adulthood," taking her at her word, she has never been proud of our nation. Is there a theme here? You may remember that last year Senator Obama said he refused to wear a flag lapel pin because it represented a "substitute for true patriotism." And what precisely is true patriotism? According to Senator Barack Hussein Obama, it is opposing the war in Iraq. Apparently nothing America did from 1982 to 2008 caused her heart to swell with pride. Not our successful effort to defeat Soviet communism and liberate millions of people in Eastern Europe? Not our relief efforts around the world, through which we spent billions to help the downtrodden? Not anything? When she learned with all the rest of us how her fellow citizens on United Flight 93 bravely fought back against jihadist hijackers and prevented another disaster on September 11th, did she not fill up with pride? As Americans of all races and classes rallied together in defense of our nation in the aftermath of September 11th, did her spirit not jump with love for her homeland? Apparently not. The Obamas are living examples of the American Dream. Both Michelle Obama and her husband have Ivy League degrees. They make a joint income of over one million dollars a year. They live lives that most ordinary Americans can only dream of. Yet, Mrs. Obama, who wants to be first lady, has been unable to find the pride in America that millions of ordinary Americans feel every day. Sadly, her attitude is not rare among leftwing American elites. We are "educating" millions of Americans to be globalists first and foremost, and we are doing precious little about educating our children to be proud and unashamed Americans. The Obamas are flying high politically right now, but I don't believe many Americans will want to cast their votes this November for a couple so out of touch with traditional American values. May I add that they are both for abortion, even after the baby is born.

But they need to be seen. They depict the bloody, dismembered remains of human embryos and fetuses after a surgical abortion. While these images are incredibly shocking, they are no more shocking than the act of abortion itself. And so long as this injustice is hidden, it will continue to be ignored. Millions of dollars are spent to keep you in the dark, to keep you from seeing what you are about to discover. Abortion isn't about choice, its about the systematic slaughter of innocent human beings. These photographs are real and untouched, depicting the brutal reality that daily occurs behind sterile clinic doors. Until you see what abortion does, you will never understand what abortion is. Naomi Wolf, one of the most celebrated feminists of the modern era puts it this way: How can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To insist that the truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy. Besides, if these images are often the facts of the matter, and if we then claim that it is offensive for pro-choice women to be confronted by them, then we are making the judgment that women are too inherently weak to face a truth about which they have to make a grave decision. This view of women is unworthy of feminism.* It is thoroughly inconsistent for anyone who supports abortion to be unwilling to face the reality of what abortion does. Enough is enough. Its time you knew the truth.

Students for Life of America was among the first to report that Bill Clinton lost his temper at a public rally in Steubenville, OH on Sunday after being met by over 100 pro-life students. Students for Life provides a transcript of the exchange, which is also available for viewing on YouTube, where, as of this writing, it has already been viewed over 400,000 times: "I gave you the answer. We disagree with you," Clinton said. "You wanna criminalize women and their doctors and we disagree. I reduced abortion. Tell the truth, tell the truth, If you were really pro-life, if you were really pro-life, you would want to put every doctor and every mother as an accessory to murder in prison. And you won't say you wanna do that because you know, that you wouldn't have a lick of political support. Now, the issue is who, the issue is, you can't name me anybody presently in politics that did more to introduce policies that reduce the number of real abortions instead of the hot air putting out to tear people up and make votes by dividing America. This is not your rally. I heard you. That's another thing you need is a president, somebody who will stick up for individual rights and not be pushed around, and she won't."

Mexico City, Mexico (LifeNews.com) -- As the Mexico Supreme Court considers a legal challenge to a new law in Mexico City that allows abortions up to 12 weeks into pregnancy, new reports indicate a teenager has died from an abortion. A 15-year-old girl died after an abortion practitioner failed to properly treat her. According to the Mexico City daily newspaper El Universal, the girl, named Vianney, died on February 15 at Balbuena Hospital from a hemorrhage that occurred after a botched abortion. The newspaper indicated there have been 6,132 abortions in the 10 months since the capital's legislative assembly approved the abortion law last April. El Universal quoted officials from the Federal District Health Department saying Vianney was suffering from acute anemia when she arrived at the hospital. Health authorities indicated medical officials did nothing about the girl's condition and, when she began bleeding heavily form the abortion, her situation became grave. The newspaper also indicated that the abortion practitioner did not do an ultrasound beforehand and medical officials eventually learned Vianney was 16 weeks pregnant -- further along than the abortion practitioner realized or than the new law allowed. Thus far, 272 teenagers have had abortions under the new law, the newspaper indicated. Raimundo Rojas, the Hispanic Outreach Director for National Right to Life, talked with LifeNews.com about the girl's death. "This is an unfolding tragedy that will continue to spread like a cancer if the good people of Mexico do not act and react to this story," he said. "A young woman has lost her life, nearly 6,000 children already slaughtered, and the abortion industry continues to insist that abortion is the panacea for the women of the Americas," he added. The death comes as the nation's high court is considering challenges from the National Human Rights Commission and the federal Attorney Generals Office, which say the new abortion law violates the Mexico Constitution. The document offers an acknowledgement of the right to life of all people. The high court began its latest term on January 2 and the case against the abortion law is slated as the first decision it will hand down. Abortion, as it is in most of the nations in the Caribbean and Latin America, is illegal throughout the rest of Mexico and its federal Congress doesn't appear likely to legalize abortion nationwide. Most women pay nothing for the abortions at the public hospitals, artificially making abortion seem a better alternative, especially for poor women. Mexico City officials say that about 75 percent of the abortions done there have been surgical in nature, with women in the rest using the dangerous RU 486 abortion drug that has already claimed more than a dozen lives worldwide and six in the United States alone.

Pierre, SD (LifeNews.com) -- The Catholic bishop in South Dakota has given his okay for Catholics in the state to help gather signatures for the abortion ban some pro-life advocates there hope to get on the state ballot this November. This would be the second attempt to ban abortions after an initial ban failed in 2006. Some Catholics have expressed reservations about the new ban because it contains exceptions for rape and incest. But Bishop Paul Swain of the Sioux Falls Catholic Diocese says the ban is worthy of support because it moves in the direction of stopping as many abortions as soon as possible. He said in a statement released Wednesday that sometimes the political response to the tragedy of abortion "may restore justice gradually." He cited Pope John Paul II who said attempts to ban as many abortions as possible that don't fall within Catholic teaching still advance the pro-life principles the Church supports. "A Catholic may, after prayer and sufficiently informing his or her conscience, support this referendum under the principle of gradualism petitions may be made available in parishes to assure that those who desire the opportunity to sign may do so," Bishop Swain said. With just 30 days left to gather signatures, pro-life advocates have to move quickly if they want to get the abortion ban certified for the November ballot. This is the second time Bishop Swain has spoken on the abortion ban. Last month, he said it would be alright for South Dakota Catholic voters to support the ban. The Catholic leader said the measure would ban so many abortions that it's better to support it even though it doesn't entirely conform with Catholic teaching saying that such abortions are immoral. "Public officials can seek to provide as much protection as possible for the unborn," Swain said. South Dakota voters previously defeated a ban that had only an exception to protect the life of the mother. Polls showed voters would have approved one with the rarely-used rape and incest exceptions. He said voting for the abortion ban would promote the "gradualism" or incremental approach that seeks to protect as many unborn children as possible as soon as possible. At the same time, he said that "if the time comes when exceptions can be removed, people have to work for it." There were 748 abortions performed in South Dakota in 2006, down from the 805 abortions performed in 2005, the South Dakota health department recently reported. The South Dakota Department of Health reported that just 1.9 percent of all abortions there in 2006 involved threats to the mother's life or rape or incest as a reason for the abortion. Women were given multiple choices for the reason for the abortion and 85 percent involved the mother not wanting a baby at the time and another 21 percent involved the mother not having the financial means to have a child. The number of abortions to protect the woman's life or for reasons of sexual abuse have dropped over the years.

ABORT 73

PRO LIFE ACTION LEAGUE

PRO LIFE AMERICA

COVENANT NEWS