Pro-Life Parental-Notification Initiatives Rejected
California and Oregon voters rejected ballot measures to require notification of a minor’s parents before undergoing an abortion. Both issues would have prohibited abortions for minors until 48 hours after a physician notified the minor’s parents or legal guardian. Under Oregon’s Measure 43, teenagers under 15 would have needed outright parental consent for any surgical procedure.
Supporters say such measures protect teen girls from sexual predators who take them for abortions without their parents’ knowledge. Thirty-five states now require either parental notification or consent, and studies have shown reductions in the abortion rate associated with such measures.
Carrie Gordon Earll, director of issues analysis for Focus on the Family Action, said it was tragic that voters rejected “this common-sense approach to abortion.”
“It’s beyond comprehension that voters in California and Oregon would reject allowing parents of teenage girls at least be notified before their daughter has an abortion,” she said. “Such a measure is an act of common decency and common sense. Parents have every right to be informed and involved before their minor daughter undergoes such a life-changing, and sometimes life-threatening event.
“We applaud the many citizens and churches throughout California and Oregon who worked tirelessly and sacrificed to educate their fellow citizens on these measures. Unfortunately, the abortion industry and its political machine made defeating these parental-rights measures an election priority — often misrepresenting what the proposed law would do.” –from Focus on the Family at their website on CitizenLink, 11.08.06, as submitted by Mark Zaveson
Violence Averted in Jerusalem Over Gay Pride Parade
Jerusalem – A violent confrontation between Jerusalem’s gay and ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities was averted Friday (Nov. 10) when gay activists agreed to hold a rally in a local stadium rather than march through the city’s streets. — by Michele Chabin, from Reuters News Service as found at the PBS Religion and Ethics Newsweekly 11.11.06
Christian Student Challenges Missouri State Over Free Speech
She says a professor coerced her to write a letter in support of gay adoption.
Missouri State University is in court after punishing a Christian student who refused to write a letter to the state Legislature in support of gay adoption.
Emily Brooker says she refused the project because she opposes gay adoption, but her professor ignored her objections and wrote her up.
David French, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund who is representing Brooker, said her First Amendment rights were egregiously violated.
“She was brought up on charges for among other things an insufficient commitment to diversity,” he told Family News in Focus. “She was then punished by the university in a Star-Chamber type proceeding, where her professors asked her if she thought they were sinners, if she thought gays and lesbians were sinners.”
John Black, a spokesman for the university, said the school is initiating an investigation. “The university is committed to practicing principles of free inquiry and expression,” he said, “and maintenance of non-coercive learning environments.”
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said this case is not the ordinary First Amendment challenge.
“Coerced speech is anathema,” Hausknecht said. “It is the absolute antithesis of what the First Amendment is there to protect.” –from Focus on the Family, 11.06.06, as submitted by Mark Zaveson
A headline that offers more than it should?
Duct Tape No Substitute for a Babysitter, Police Say –found at CNN.com
British Medical College: Kill Disabled Babies
If a respected British medical school has its way, British doctors will be routinely killing babies born with serious disabilities. The Times of London reported in a page one story this weekend on the shocking proposal from Britain’s respected Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecology.
The College has called on doctors to consider permitting infanticide in the case of seriously disabled newborn babies. According to the paper, geneticists and medical ethicists supported the proposal -– as did the mother of a severely disabled child -– while a prominent children’s doctor described it as “social engineering.”
John Wyatt, consultant neonatologist at University College London hospital, told the Times: “Intentional killing is not part of medical care,” adding that “The majority of doctors and health professionals believe that once you introduce the possibility of intentional killing into medical practice you change the fundamental nature of medicine. It immediately becomes a subjective decision as to whose life is worthwhile.”
If a doctor can decide whether a life is worth living, he told the Times, “it changes medicine into a form of social engineering where the aim is to maximize the benefit for society and minimize those who are perceived as worthless.” And Simone Aspis of the British Council of Disabled People told the Times: “If we introduced euthanasia for certain conditions it would tell adults with those conditions that they were worth less than other members of society…” –from an unknown source, as submitted by Mark Zaveson, 11.06.06