Infonet List! A daily Prolife News letter. Samples: Join the ProLife Movement Support the Infonet List! Here'sBACK TO PEARLS How.

Important: Help Us Build a Pro-Life Tomorrow Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:22:19 -0600 (CST) From: <ertelt@prolife.org> Dear Infonet Friends, This may be one of the more important email messages IÕll write to Infonet. On behalf of my partner Sally Winn, IÕd like to share with you some dynamic goals and visions we have for protecting the right to life through the Internet. Some of you are familiar with not only the Infonet, but with the components of the entire Women and Children First Project (http://www.prolife.org/wcf). Let me give you an overview of the great things that have been accomplished and the vision we have for the future. Since you are a subscriber to the Pro-Life Infonet, you are no doubt aware of the vast amount of news, information, and educational resources Infonet provides to people on a daily basis. But you may not be aware that Infonet, together with some in-house email alert lists, is a bustling network of nearly 20,000 pro-life supporters all across the country and all around the world. Most of you are familiar with the various web sites associated with the Pro- Life Infonet. Almost 100,000 people have found pro-life educational resources at the Ultimate Pro-Life Resource List. Some 15,000 have connected with abortion alternatives through Crisis Pregnancy Centers Online. Several thousand have found information on public policy through The Armchair Lobbyist. Finally, the newest Web Site, Roe v. Wade: 25 Years of Life Denied, helped almost 16,000 people find out the truth about the infamous Supreme Court case in only two months time. Sally and I are excited about the success God has already blessed each of these right to life outreach projects. We would like to share with you a vision we have for an even greater impact the pro-life message can have in countless lives throughout the country and ask for your help in making it happen. The Internet has given the world the capacity to distribute information quickly and easily. Educating about the right to life, supporting pro-life public policy, and helping women with crisis pregnancies - these are the hallmark of the pro-life community. And by harnessing the opportunity of the Internet, Sally and I have tried to professionally, thoroughly, and effectively carry out these missions on-line. We have put together these web sites and this pro-life network in our spare time and with limited financial resources. We would like to take what weÕve built, and with your help, raise the standard a few notches. Let me explain. WeÕre humbled that God has blessed this work with so many who have become a part of the network. Yet we know it has greater potential. We know that if we could spend more time building this work and making available information about this network to more people, that it can become a powerful force for saving lives. Imagine a network with 100,000, 200,000 or more pro-life supporters all receiving information they can act on immediately in the halls of Congress or their own communities. WeÕre also excited that God has taken the web sites and helped so many find life-saving information. All of the web sites have experienced explosive recent growth and currently almost 25,000 people every month find pro-life information and crisis pregnancy help through them. We know, with your help, we can reach 100,000 people every month with this information and assistance. Let me take a moment to share with you some specific plans we have. Our current goal is to raise at least $25,000 to be able to pay a modest salary and have a modest budget to expand and promote this work. Some of the dynamic ideas and goals weÕd like to accomplish include: - We would like to expand and see tremendous growth in the Pro-Life Infonet and email network. The impact a well-informed group of 100,000 or more pro- life citizens can have would be felt in Congress and every state legislature around the country. - We would like to expand and see tremendous growth in the various web sites. Not simply with additional visitors finding information but to expand the content at each web site. We want to provide comprehensive pro-life information so every pro-life person can have the resources they need, right at their fingertips. - We have plans to construct the first ever Internet Crisis Pregnancy Center. Already we receive email each and every week from women looking for help, resources, and caring friend to support her in the midst of a crisis pregnancy situation. Our on-line CPC will offer email-based counseling from trained professionals who can listen, understand, help and refer women to places in their area which can provide additional assistance. - We will be creating a comprehensive Campaign Ô98 site after the primaries complete with a 1997 legislative scorecard for identifying the percentage of time each member of Congress voted pro-life, we will include lifetime voting records for each current member of Congress, and a comprehensive voting guide to identify candidates and their stands on the right to life issue. - Finally, we would eventually like to use our funds to pay a salary to be able to take our work from a part-time to a full-time basis. We would like to conduct extensive advertising and promotions of the services, such as the crisis pregnancy assistance, to help more people than ever before. To take these projects to a higher level, we need your support. Never before have we called upon you, our friends, to consider such a proposal. With the comments so many of you have shared and the hopes and dreams we have to save more lives and help more women choose life, we want to ask you to multiply this work. We are specifically looking for 100 people to become friends of Women and Children First and pledge a financial contribution of $20 each month to help us meet our minimum goal of $2000 per month for these and many other projects we have in store. We know some may have the ability to help further with a gift of $50 or more per month. Others of you may have another monthly or one- time amount which is most comfortable for you. No gift is too small. We do want to make it clear that the resources we provide will always remain free. There will never be any cost associated with receiving the Pro-Life Infonet or accessing any of the information or services on the web sites. Please prayerfully consider supporting these goals with your financial contribution. If this is something you feel called to participate in, please send the following "form" back to us at ertelt@prolife.org and weÕll respond to you with additional information. Sally and I canÕt begin to thank you enough for the generous support youÕve given us. The stand for life each of you has taken is commendable and together we can further champion the right to life. For their lives, Steven Ertelt Sally Winn P.S. Please prayerfully consider becoming a part of this exciting work! We have other dynamic ideas we were not able to share in this letter. We appreciate your desire to help mothers and protect unborn babies! Thank you! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ______ Count me in, Steve and Sally! I want to be a part of this continuing pro-life work with my monthly pledge of $20. ______ Count me in, Steve and Sally! I want to be a part of this continuing pro-life work with my monthly pledge of . ______ Count me in, Steve and Sally! I want to be a part of this continuing pro-life work with a one-time donation of . ______ Thanks Steve and Sally, but I canÕt help at this time. Please ask me again in the future. ______ Thanks Steve and Sally, but I canÕt help at this time. My hopes and prayers are with you. I thank you for taking the time to read this message and encourage you to support infonet - ET

THE SAMPLES Subject: [infonet-list] Digest #154 Resent-Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 05:00:10 -0600 Subject: Today's Topics: Roe v. Wade Report: Dateline 12.28.97 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Roe v. Wade Report: Dateline 12.28.97 Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 02:16:16 -0600 (CST) To: infonet-list@prolife.org R O E V. W A D E R E P O R T Sponsored by Roe v. Wade: 25 Years of Life Denied http://www.prolife.org/rvw Permission to forward granted provided this entire document remains intact. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATELINE 12.28.97 -- 25 days until 25 Years of Roe v. Wade becomes official. FACT OF THE WEEK This year a woman obtaining a legal abortion at Reproductive Health Services in St. Louis, a Planned Parenthood-operated abortion facility, died as a result of her abortion. The 22-year-old woman underwent a first-trimester abortion. The abortion practitioner who performed the abortion had twice before had patients die soon after the procedure. The woman who died at the St. Louis clinic was not told of this information. [Source: Associated Press Reports and St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 6/12.] PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO LIFE by Congressman Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) As a practicing physician, I can attest that there is nothing more miraculous or more inspiring than helping to bring new life into the world. After delivering more than 3,000 babies ... more than one hundred during my tenure in Congress ... I feel a special interest in defending the youngest and most innocent of life. That is why I am deeply saddened by the tragedy of abortion. In the twenty- five years since the Supreme Court decided in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, no unborn boy or girl has been safe from the scissors, scalpels, suction machines or salt solutions used to dismember or poison them. At least 35 million abortions have been performed since 1973, and each day more than 4,000 unborn children are added to that list. The Roe decision allowed a mother to abort her child for any reason before the end of the sixth month of pregnancy, or for "health" reasons at any point in the last three months. No provisions protected the unborn child. The Court in Doe v. Bolton made it clear that through the ninth month any "health" concern (which it said encompassed "all factors...physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age...relevant to the well being of the patient") could outweigh the unborn child's most basic right ... the right to life. In 1973, medical knowledge was such that the humanity of the unborn child could not be seriously questioned, but the advances which have taken place since then are breathtaking. Technology now proves that brain waves can be detected within 41 days of conception. It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court accepts the lack of brain waves as definition of "death." The opposite should be true, and thus the detection of brain waves should logically be a definition for the beginning of "life." Fetal anomalies which are now able to be treated in the womb include urinary tract defects, spina bifida, and diaphragmatic hernia, to name a few. Only last month, the news reported the sound health of an eighteen month boy, Taylor Dahley. Taylor was diagnosed two years earlier with a rare and fatal immunodeficiency condition. The Dahleys, recognizing that their child's life was at stake, allowed Taylor to undergo an in vitro bone marrow transplant. The procedure was successful, and now offers hope to many other children. The legal climate has also shifted considerably in the past twenty-four years. There are an increasing number of cases in which mothers are being prosecuted for damaging their fetuses through drug and alcohol abuse. [Consider] two key legal cases in Wisconsin: * In 1995, a judge gave a fetus a name ... John or Jane Doe W. ... and ordered it detained at a local hospital. By necessity, the ruling meant detaining the mother as well. Clearly, the rights of the unborn child were not only protected, but prevailed. * In one highly-publicized dispute, Deborah Zimmerman was charged with attempted homicide for tying to drink her fetus to death. She was brought to a hospital with a toxic blood alcohol level and was ordered hospitalized until she "sobered up." Her child was born with fetal alcohol syndrome and is now in foster are. In 1995 Congress voted overwhelmingly to ban "an abortion which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery." Thousands of these abortions, or more appropriately, infanticides, are performed each year: they are done after mid-pregnancy ... most often in the fifth or sixth months ... and virtually all are elective. Regardless of one's feelings on abortion, this heinous procedure is medically and morally indefensible. Even Members of Congress who traditionally consider themselves "pro-choice" supported the ban because the procedure ethically "crossed the line." Yet proponents of the partial birth abortion contend that there are legitimate reasons for this procedure. As a practicing physician who has handled every major complication involved with pregnancy, I can attest to the fact that the procedure is never medically necessary. Dr. Martin Haskell who has performed more than 1,000 partial- birth abortions, stated that 80 percent of the partial-birth abortions he performed between 20-24 weeks (4.5-5.5 months) were "purely elective." Experts in prenatal care, such as Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago, insist that "there are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially-delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother." In fact, the opposite is true. Because the procedure involves three days of forceful dilation of the cervix, the mother risks damaging her reproductive organs. Uterine rupture is also a documented complication associated with a partial birth abortion. The hypocrisy is glaring: Medical technology continues to improve; Life saving operations are performed on fetuses and premature babies survive and develop outside the womb. But legally, a women can still decide to terminate a late-term pregnancy, even as courts and judges across the country are beginning to defend the rights of the unborn. The debate over partial-birth abortion has done much to expose the truth about life and the brutality of abortion. The sad reality is that those who support partial-birth abortion will defend abortion for any reason and at any state of fetal development ... even up until the moment of birth. Science is now deciding what the Supreme Court could not, which is that life does indeed begin before birth, but additional legal protection is needed. Enacting the Partial Birth Abortion Ban is the first major step we can take to reverse the tragic legal injustice which has permitted millions of lives ... both mothersÕ and childrenÕs ... to be destroyed over the past twenty-five years. But isn't it curious that these are the very people who want government to pay for abortions? We have a duty to support legislative efforts to protect unborn children and the legislative process itself plays an important role in educating the American people about the horrors of abortion. One of the primary benefits of last year's congressional debate on partial birth abortions was educational. Why did former Congresswoman Pat Schroeder and her allies fight to prohibit medical drawings depicting the partial birth abortion procedure from even being displayed on the House floor? It was not concern about House decorum. It was because these First Amendment, free speech advocates did not want the American people to see on C-Span what abortion really is. Abortion-rights advocates oppose right-to-know legislation because knowledge, truth and time reveal the lack of a moral base for their cause. Ultimately, the answer to abortion is not in making it against the law but in changing attitudes. William Wilberforce, the 19th century statesman, led the decades-long fight to outlaw slavery in the British Empire. While increasingly pressing his legislative efforts, he recognized hat legislative success apart from a moral consensus among the populace would be futile. Legislative and educational efforts must walk hand in hand to change hearts and minds on the issue. Wilberforce inspired the abolitionist forces with his eloquent determination. For Wilberforce, the abolition of slavery was a lifelong effort - he spent fifty-three years of his life focused on this worthy goal. He started his fight to outlaw the slave trade when he was elected to the House of Commons at the young age of twenty-one. Slavery was finally completely abolished one week after his death, at age 74. Twenty-five years after Roe v. Wade, America continues its descent in the moral fog. But pro-lifers must show determination and focus, like that of William Wilberforce. We must be focused on our vision for an America where abortion clinics will be a thing of the past, where our laws recognize the intrinsic value of all human life, where all people of goodwill feel compelled to help those in crisis pregnancy, where both political parties are pro-life and where the culture of death is replaced by the ethic of life. QUOTE OF THE WEEK Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee: "I pray that many of us will live to see the day when we will remember that once it might have been considered unfashionable to be pro-life, but find there is a forgotten message: The innocence of human life ... is not so much about choices, but about human children." (AP/Memphis COMMERCIAL APPEAL, 1/20/97). FROM THE CASE The fact that a majority of the states reflecting, after all, the majority sentiment in those states, had had restrictions on abortions for at least a century, is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not "so rooted in the traditions of conscience and our people as to be ranked fundamental," SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934). Even today, when societyÕs views on abortions are changing, the very existence of the debate is evidence that the "right to an abortion" is not so universally accepted as the appellant would have us believe. -- Justice William Rehnquist dissenting in ROE V. WADE, 410 U.S. 113. DID YOU KNOW? In 1973, when abortion became legal in the United States, there were 167,000 cases of child abuse and neglect reported. Yet in 1980 there were 785,100 cases - an increase of 370% from 1973. Furthermore, in 1987, there were 2,025,200 cases reported, which represents an increase of 1112%. [Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center of Child Abuse and Neglect; National Analysis of Official Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting. Subject: [infonet-list] Digest #159 Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 22:33:13 -0600 Resent-From: infonet-list-request@prolife.org Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 22:33:13 -0600 From: <infonet-list-request@prolife.org> Reply-To: <infonet-list@prolife.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <infonet-list@prolife.org> Subject: Today's Topics: How do women respond to abortion? California: TV stations censor ad on partial-birth abortion Subject: How do women respond to abortion? Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 22:22:55 -0600 (CST) From: <ertelt@prolife.org> To: infonet-list@prolife.org How do women respond to abortion? by Steven Ertelt News reports today reveal conclusions from a recent study whose researchers say women, on the whole, respond positively to abortion and feel they made the right decision. Yet other research contradicts this claim. Psychologist Brenda Major of the University of California at Santa Barbara claims, "The findings clearly contradict the claim that most women who have an abortion will regret (it)." Her research studied women two years after getting an abortion. About seven out of 10 in a study of 442 Buffalo women feel they made the right decision, and they'd do it again. Yet her study also supports evidence from other studies which clear show many women regret their abortion decision. Major's study reports 12% of women are unsure about their abortion decision, and 19% report they would not make the same decision again. Arizona State University psychologist Nancy Felipe Russo has also studied abortion's effect on women and notes that women with low self-esteem before pregnancy are more likely to become depressed after abortion. That three in 10 women feeling regret two years later "is a sizable minority," argues Serrin Foster of Feminists for Life of America. "Anecdotally, we hear it all the time. . . . Women in their 40s feel they made the decision as a last resort in their 20s. Now they wish they'd had the resources - housing, day care, health insurance. They felt coerced, and they should have had a choice." But what can be determined from studies completed this far? Post-abortion researcher David Reardon notes that "approximately 50 percent of women who have had an abortion will conceal their past abortion[s] from interviewers." [Jones, E.F. & Forrest, J.D., "Underreporting of Abortion in Surveys of U.S. Women: 1976 to 1988," Demography, 29(1):113-126 (1992).] Reardon also points out that women's post-abortion reactions also vary over time. "Women who are initially filled with grief and self-reproach may subsequently find emotional healing, whereas women who initially coped well may subsequently find themselves shattered," says Reardon. In one study of 260 women who reported negative post-abortion reactions, 63 to 76 percent claimed there was a period of time during which they would have denied any negative feelings connected to their abortions. The average period of denial reported by the survey population was 63 months. [Reardon, D., "Psychological Reactions Reported After Abortion," The Post-Abortion Review, 2(3):4-8 (1994).] Further studies have shown more negatives results and demonstrated that most women would not choose abortion again. One study, [Can Med Assoc J 1977 Jan 8;116(1):44-46], told how most women "said they would not have another abortion." And a second revealed that in post-abortion patients only 8 weeks after their abortion, researchers found that 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor. [Ashton,"They Psychosocial Outcome of Induced Abortion", British Journal of Ob&Gyn., 87:1115-1122, (1980).] Abortion is frequently touted as a solution to a one-time problem. Yet women who have abortions, some research confirms, may opt for abortion not once but possibly twice or more. Women who have one abortion are at increased risk of having additional abortions in the future. Women with a prior abortion experience are four times more likely to abort a current pregnancy than those with no prior abortion history. [Joyce, "The Social and Economic Correlates of Pregnancy Resolution Among Adolescents in New York by Race and Ethnicity: A Multivariate Analysis," Am. J. of Public Health, 78(6):626-631 (1988)]. As Reardon concludes, "This increased risk is associated with the prior abortion due to lowered self esteem, a conscious or unconscious desire for a replacement pregnancy, and increased sexual activity post-abortion. Subsequent abortions may occur because of conflicted desires to become pregnant and have a child and continued pressures to abort, such as abandonment by the new male partner. Aspects of self-punishment through repeated abortions are also reported." [Leach, "The Repeat Abortion Patient," Family Planning Perspectives, 9(1):37-39 (1977)] Once again it appears abortion advocates are doing a disservice to women. In crusading for the rights of women, abortion advocates have obtained the right but left the women behind. As with the growing evidence that confirms an increased risk of breast-cancer due to induced abortion and the multitude of medical documentation revealing abortion's medical risks, the emotional and psychological after-effects of abortion are one more way in which women suffer needlessly from abortion on demand. Champions of women understand the validity of the argument Serrin Foster makes. Namely, that realistic and affirming solutions exist which provide mothers with tangible assistance and alternatives to abortion. Practical pregnancy assistance in the form of prenantal care, baby items, friendly counseling and short-term housing protects life and provides women with real choices. -- Roe v. Wade: 25 Years of Life Denied http://www.prolife.org/rvw Subject: California: TV stations censor ad on partial-birth abortion Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 22:31:50 -0600 (CST) From: <ertelt@prolife.org> To: infonet-list@prolife.org TV Stations Won't Censor Ad LOS ANGELES -- Three television stations have refused to air political ads that discuss the partial-birth abortion procedure. Local affiliates for CBS, NBC and ABC networks declined the 30- and 60-second ads for Tom Bordonaro, a Republican state Assemblymen running for Congress, that were prepared by a conservative political action committee. The commercials were to begin airing Dec. 28 on KCOY in Santa Maria; KSBY in San Luis Obispo and KEYT in Santa Barbara, but station managers deemed them offensive. ``We told them they would have the opportunity to convey their message if the message was toned down,'' Charlie Hogetvedt, general manager of CBS affiliate KCOY, said Friday. The Campaign for Working Families tried to buy air time for the ads. ``They're afraid to deal honestly in a political sense with the subject of abortion,'' said Peter Dickinson, spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based PAC. The 30-second ad contains a verbal description of a partial-birth abortion: ``This procedure starts with the entire body being delivered except for the head. The incision is then made into the skull and the brain is removed.'' The 60-second spot contains a slightly more detailed description. Bordonaro, who is pro-life, and Brooks Firestone, a pro-abortion Republican state Assemblyman, face off against pro-abortion Democrat Lois Capps in a Jan. 13 special election to replace Capps' late husband, Walter Capps, who died of a heart attack in October, 10 months after assuming office in the 22nd Congressional District. Bordonaro's campaign did not sanction the ads but does not condemn them, either. ``In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to have independent expenditures and a candidate would have complete control of his campaign,'' said Bordonaro spokesman Jim Kjol. ``But the way the federal law is structured, it invites outside groups to come in and do this without any approval from the candidate. Tom's real clear, he doesn't support censorship.'' In 1996, Bordonaro voted for a bill to ban the partial-birth abortion procedure in California while Firestone voted against it. Firestone later submitted a phony amendment pretending to prohibit abortions. The amendment did not pass. Dickinson said the issue is important because this year Congress could override President Clinton's veto of a bill that would have outlawed the brutal abortion procedure. -- The Armchair Lobbyist http://www.prolife.org/tal -- The Roe v. Wade Report is a weekly special feature sponsored by "Roe v. Wade: 25 Years of Life Denied," a web site at http://www.prolife.org/rvw that highlights information and analysis concerning the infamous Supreme Court decision and its effects. Subject: [infonet-list] Digest #176 Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 05:00:10 -0600 Resent-From: infonet-list-request@prolife.org Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 05:00:10 -0600 From: <infonet-list-request@prolife.org> Reply-To: <infonet-list@prolife.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <infonet-list@prolife.org> Subject: Today's Topics: Networks refuse to air Mother Theresa ads from RTL Michigan Subject: Networks refuse to air Mother Theresa ads from RTL Michigan Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 12:26:52 -0600 (CST) From: <ertelt@prolife.org> To: infonet-list@prolife.org Major Networks Refuse to Air Right to Life of Michigan Spots Media Spots to be Unveiled at Press Conference 1/16/98 Right to Life of Michigan (RLM) is holding a press conference Friday to unveil a 30-second media spot that each of the major networks -- ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX & CNN -- have refused to air. The press conference occurs at 9:30 a.m. at the State Capitol, in room 428. In light of the fact that the spot was rejected by the major networks, RLM worked for several months to purchase time on over 20 local media markets across the country. The media spot -- which will run extensively throughout Michigan and the rest of the nation -- features one of the final interviews with Mother Teresa, captured by award-winning producer Jim Hanon just months before her death. In the 30-second segment of this interview, Mother Teresa makes some concerned comments about life issues. "The refusals of the major networks was based on an alleged policy against issues," said Project Director Amanda Peterman. "It is difficult to accept this, given inconsistencies." Peterman pointed out that networks use programming and advertising to put opinions in American homes every night of the year, from editorials to commercials for hard liquor. "Mother Teresa talks about children and the networks censor her," Peterman added, saying she wondered if this "policy" wasn't just selective censorship. "Mother Teresa transcends all religions, all classes," said RLM President Barbara A. Listing. "In the eyes of the world she was a humanitarian. In a land of Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs, she was considered a saint. But these networks consider her so controversial that they censor her." RLM sought to pay the going rate in order to air the Mother Teresa spot. Unlike much programming, the spots featured no vulgar language, no violence and no nudity. It was even denied by the network featuring a show about a priest who advises on abortion. "By virtue of their programming, the networks state a collective opinion which is largely in favor of abortion," Peterman said. "We wanted to pay for thirty seconds in which we would state our opinion. And they told us no." -- Infonet List is a daily compilation of pro-life news and educational information. For more pro-life information visit the Ultimate Pro-Life Resource List at http://www.prolife.org/ultimate and for questions or additional information, email infonet-mod@prolife.org [ BACK TO PEARLS ] The Ultimate Pro-Life Resource List Roe v. Wade: 25 Years of Life Denied Crisis Pregnancy Centers Online To get daily pro-life news and information, email infonet-mod@prolife.org and write "subscribe infonet"