What a Great Start to our SFLA Fall Med Tour!

We are over a quarter of the way through our 2012 Fall Med Tour and already we have provided pro-life medical lectures at North Texas University, UC Davis, Texas A&M, Dartmouth, University of Minneapolis and Jefferson College.

To date, over 400 med students from across the country have heard a pro-life medical lecture in the last two weeks. We have seen hearts changed and medical students taking a new interest in caring for both mother and preborn baby as patients. We are serious about changing the dialogue on med school campuses to help bring the field of medicine to a patient centered focus, where life is affirmed and valued.  Over time these lectures will result in a dynamic shift towards life on Medical school campuses.

Special thanks to Dr. Anita Showalter, Dr. Maureen Condic, Dr. Bill Toffler and Dr. Byron Calhoun (pictured above) for being our guest lecturers. Without your willingness to travel, those 400 students would have never been reached. And thank you to our financial supporters, who have generously supported this tour so far, we are blessed to partner with you.

More Medical Deception from Planned Parenthood

Obama Administration: Planned Parenthood Does not Perform Mammograms

By Casey Mattox, counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund.

A deliberate effort is underway to rebrand Planned Parenthood as an integral provider of healthcare services, without which untold millions of women would lack basic medical care, or so the story goes. Thus, whenever any effort is made to cut off funding for the nation’s largest abortion provider and stalwart financier of leftist politicians, we’re told there is a “war on women.”

But it’s not a “war on women” when a state simply places a higher priority on funds for true health services that Planned Parenthood doesn’t perform Take, for example, mammograms.

Yes, mammograms. Perhaps there is no greater falsehood than the deceitful, and largely successful, attempt to persuade Americans that Planned Parenthood performs mammograms. It doesn’t.

When the Komen Foundation announced in February that it would no longer provide grants to Planned Parenthood—partly due to the fact that Planned Parenthood does not directly provide mammograms – its ideological and political supporters sprang into action. They decried Komen’s decision to eliminate funding for this imagined provider of mammograms. Planned Parenthood’s Executive Director, Cecile Richards, made the claim. So did President Obama. And an unsuspecting public was led to believe that such bold claims, by people who should know, must be true.

No matter that phone calls to Planned Parenthood from Live Action demonstrated clearly that this was not the case: Obama had spoken. And the president’s campaign together with Planned Parenthood’s ads continue to beat this drum (almost as if they were coordinated), building off the earlier confusion to frighten voters about the prospect of a Romney administration cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood’s “cancer screenings.”


MedSFLA National Webcast: Conscience Rights in America’s Medical Schools

Please join us this Tuesday, August 28th from 9pm – 9:45pm EST for a MedSFLA National Webcast: Conscience Rights in America’s Medical Schools.

Medical students at public colleges or universities have established constitutional rights to speak, associate, and exercise religious beliefs freely—rights that for too many are restricted, violated, or denied by universities. Compelled participation of students and faculty in advocacy of views and participation in procedures, both in and out of the classroom, that are contrary to their beliefs is unconstitutional.

Medical students have conscience rights to protect religious beliefs during med school, residency, and beyond, yet there remains so much confusion of what these rights are exactly.  That is why, MedSFLA is are offering a free, live webcast featuring Alliance Defending Freedom Attorney, Matt Bowman, on August 28th!  Mr. Bowman is going lay out the case for your conscience rights in medical school, the protections these rights offer, and what to do if these rights are violated.

To listen to the replay of this event:

When it Comes to Prenatal Nutrition FLOTUS Agrees it’s a Baby

By Jon Russell

First Lady of the United States (FLOTUS), Michelle Obama, has a long track record of supporting abortion in all nine months of pregnancy.

According to Jill Stanek, RN, “in February 2004, Michelle Obama wrote a fundraising letter during her husband’s 2004 U.S. Senate campaign claiming the partial birth abortion ban ‘is clearly unconstitutional’ and ‘a flawed law.'”

So why does her website “Let’s Move” espouse fetal nutrition? Why would she go so far as to even call “it” a baby when she has no problem terminating a child in his or her third trimester?

According to FLOTUS’ Let’s Move web site’s, MyPlate Plan for Nursing Moms and Moms-to-Be, “When a woman is pregnant or breastfeeding, she has special nutritional needs that can have a huge impact on the health of her baby. The Choose MyPlate Plan for Moms shows the foods and amounts that are right during pregnancy and when you are breastfeeding.”

But if the fetus is not a baby and can be terminated at any point during the pregnancy, then why would FLOTUS care whether the fetus is receiving proper nutrition in the womb?

The only theory we are left with is that the first lady knows that proper nutrition prior, during, and after pregnancy is important because the fetus is a living, growing, human being inside the mother. This is a common mixed message that those who advocate for abortion send and reason why their antiquated arguments, that the “fetus” is not a baby, no longer work.

More British women aborting their children over financial worries, say UK doctors


LONDON, August 14, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A survey by a market research firm has found that the global economic crisis may be influencing more British women to abort their children. The research by Insight Research Group found that about one-fifth of GPs are reporting more women requesting abortion for financial concerns.

Seventeen percent of GPs surveyed felt there was an increase in patients who “were specifically requesting terminations due to financial concerns.” Fifty-four percent of those GPs said they believed the biggest increase was among women ages 26-35. Another twenty-three percent believed the biggest increase was among single women with no previous children, while twenty-one percent said they believed it was among single women living with a “partner” with 1 to 3 previous children.

Thirty-four percent of all the GPs surveyed said that they are seeing women putting off having children “until their financial security improved.”

The findings echo those of Russian demographers who fear that recent gains in the country’s abysmally low fertility rate will be lost as more women turn to abortion to ease financial worries http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/international-life-and-family-roundup1 .

Although pro-life observers say that they have no argument with the study’s findings, they question the reaction of GPs who endorse abortion for financial reasons.

Anthony Ozimic, the communications manager for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said that for authority figures like doctors to affirm with their actions that an abortion is an acceptable solution to financial anxiety sends a profoundly negative message to the culture at large.

“Whatever the merits or otherwise of this study, Western society will continue in its moral and demographic declines as long as the message goes out that women should abort their children or significantly postpone conceiving because of financial concerns,” Ozimic said.

The UK should follow the lead of other EU countries who are offering financial, tax and other incentives to increase the financial security of families and encourage couples to marry earlier and have children, Ozimic said. Instead, the myth is being promulgated that there is such a thing as a “perfect” economic condition in which to have children, when the reality is that such conditions will not exist while the European fertility rate continues to decline.

“While prudence in planning a family is necessary, optimal economic conditions for raising children are illusory.”

Ozimic confirmed that the law does not technically allow for abortions for financial or “social” reasons, but said that doctors have been granted enormous latitude in deciding what factors in a woman’s life constitute a threat to her “mental health”.

This is acknowledged even by the courts to be the case, despite voluminous research demonstrating that abortion has a serious, long-term negative impact on women’s mental health and increasing skepticism http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-study-says-pregnancy-is-safe-even-beneficial-for-women-recovering-from/  among the psychiatric community of the existence of any mental health benefits of abortion.

Just 0.006% of British abortions done to save mother’s life, or prevent serious injury


WESTMINSTER, August 13, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Figures released by the Department of Health last week show that of the over 6 million abortions committed in England and Wales since legalization in 1967, 0.006 percent were performed with the intention of saving the life of the mother or preventing serious injury.

A total of 143 abortions have been obtained under the legal grounds allowing abortion “where the termination is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.” An additional 23,778 abortions, or 0.37 percent of the total abortions performed between 1968 and 2011, were committed because the continuance of pregnancy was deemed to constitute a “risk” to the life of the mother “greater than if the pregnancy were terminated.”

The information was released at the request of Lord David Alton, a former Labour and Liberal Democrat Party MP and now member of the House of Lords who sits on a parliamentary pro-life committee. Lord Alton wrote that when the case was made for legalizing abortion, it was argued that the law needed to be changed to “deal with extremely serious situations.”

“More than 6 million abortions later the figures reveal that in 99.5% of cases where an unborn child’s life is ended there is no risk to the health of the mother,” he said.

“Other figures reveal that three teenage girls have had 24 abortions between them and that some women have had more than eight legal abortions.”

The 1967 Abortion Act, under its current wording and including all amendments, allows abortion before 24 weeks gestation if there is deemed to be “a risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated,” of “injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family;” and to “prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.”

As well, if there is a “substantial risk” that the child suffers from “such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped,” he can be aborted up to the end of full gestation, though doctors are rarely willing to abort a late or full-term child.

Abortions must be approved by two doctors, though it was recently revealed that this rule is widely ignored.

These rules have been interpreted by both doctors and judges so broadly that pro-life observers maintain that they have effectively permitted abortion on demand up to 24 weeks.

In 2002, Lord Justice Laws said, “There is some evidence that many doctors maintain that the continuance of a pregnancy is always more dangerous to the physical welfare of a woman than having an abortion, a state of affairs which is said to allow a situation of de facto abortion on demand to prevail.”

Pro-life advocates have long maintained that there is no circumstance in which an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother.

Earlier this year an eminent Irish oncologist, professor and politician, who is himself not pro-life, wrotethat in all his years practicing he has never encountered a situation in which abortion was needed to save a mother’s life.

Dr. John Crown, who has lectured in 40 countries and is the author of 150 research papers told his Twitter followers that he had during his medical career faced some “hard decisions re: chemotherapy in pregnancy.”

However, he said, “I don’t think I ever had a case where abortion was necessary to save mom.”

Medical Ethics and Personhood

By Jon Russell, National Coordinator of Medical Students for Life of America

Human person at the point of fertilization.

After all the advancements in medical science, which show us that human life definitely begins at fertilization, abortion advocates and some in the pro-life movement struggle with the issue of personhood. They ask the question: “when does personhood begin?” While those who advocate for the legality of abortion often admit that they don’t know or care to know when the personhood of a human begins, some will acknowledge that the human embryo or fetus has personhood rights but then claim the rights of the mother carrying the child trump the rights of the child. While I’m looking forward to addressing this logically fallible argument in a future article, it’s not the subject for the day.

I want to address the small minority of pro-lifers who claim that the human embryo(s) created for in vitro fertilization (IVF) or used in embryonic stem cell research may not be persons because they were not conceived through sexual intercourse. Some of these pro-lifers such as well-known pro-life physician Dr. Paul Byrne have made the case that these human embryos, made outside of sexual intercourse, are soulless and therefore cannot be considered persons. This line of “soulless” thinking beckons the question, What if a child is born as a result of IVF? Does that “soulless” child have a right to life? This dangerous line of reasoning condemns every human created through in vitro fertilization and destroyed through embryonic stem cell research to be beyond the realm of our concern for persons.

Setting aside the deep ethical concerns many of us have about IVF or our disdain for the unproven science of embryonic stem cell research, if we accept the argument that we must defend every human beings life from “conception/fertilization to its natural end” but cannot state that personhood rights also begin with conception, then we will stand with our hands tied beside Dr. Byrne (and Planned Parenthood). Our premise of our entire human rights movement falls quickly apart. This is the very logical fallacy that abortion advocates suffer from; they don’t believe in determining when personhood begins for humans and therefor anyone can say rights begin at any time most convenient to them. This fallacy is what drives some philosophers to even claim that children may be “put to death” or “left to die” after birth until a random point in time when it is determined they have value, are conscience, or can have the mental capacity to want to live.

So why is having the discussion of personhood rights important? It is important because as science continues to advance, the human embryo will increasingly be the object of destruction. If we allow for and tolerate the destruction of any human embryo, we have lost the entire argument of the intrinsic value of every human person starting at the point of fertilization. To this point there can be no compromise.