Dayton kills ban on dangerous ‘webcam abortions’

The following was released today, April 30.

ST. PAUL — Legislation to ban "webcam abortions" was vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton today. The women's safety measure had the strong support of the Legislature and Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), the state's oldest and largest pro-life organization.

"Once again, Gov. Dayton has come to the defense of the abortion industry at the expense of women's safety," said MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach. "This is the seventh pro-life initiative that would protect women and unborn children that has been vetoed. The Dayton record is now clear: he is no friend of women or their babies."

H.F. 2341, authored by Sen. Paul Gazelka, R-Brainerd, and Rep. Joyce Peppin, R-Rogers, would have stopped dangerous webcam abortions by requiring that a physician be physically present when administering the drugs for a chemical abortion. Webcam abortions involve the RU486 abortion drug, administered via video conference with an abortion provider in another location. The doctor talks with the woman, and then presses a button which opens a drawer to remotely dispense the drug.

The doctor is never physically present in a webcam abortion to examine the woman for a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy or any other condition or factor that would make this abortion procedure especially dangerous for her. Planned Parenthood began offering webcam abortions last year at its Rochester facility; women consult with a doctor in St. Paul. The webcam abortion method is cost-effective for Planned Parenthood, allowing it to forgo a surgical center and on-site physician.

"This legislation focuses primarily on the life of the mother," Gazelka said during floor debate. "A doctor will do the exam to make sure the woman is a proper patient for this. So this is certainly looking out for the best interest of the mother but not the best interest of the abortion provider."

The risks of RU486 can be severe: 14 women are known to have died in the U.S. after taking the drugs, according to the Food and Drug Administration. At least six states, including North Dakota and Wisconsin, have already enacted webcam abortion bans, and other states are currently working to pass legislation to the same effect. Canada does not permit use of RU486 due to safety concerns.

"This is a very serious and dangerous drug and we just don't want to take this lightly," Peppin said during floor debate. "The FDA requires a physician to administer this drug."

Planned Parenthood introduced webcam abortions in Iowa in 2008 at one location; now it promotes them at nearly all of its 17 Iowa locations. Planned Parenthood has 18 locations in Minnesota and could greatly expand availability of this dangerous abortion method.

MMA sides with abortion industry

Two MCCL-supported bills recently passed by the Legislature (one has already been vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton) would help ensure the health and safety of pregnant women. In a letter that was publicized yesterday, the Minnesota Medical Association (MMA) urges the governor to veto both bills, calling them "unnecessary restrictions on legal medical procedures."

This is very unfortunate. The MMA -- which is supposed to represent physicians across Minnesota -- is going out of its way to oppose commonsense safety requirements and to protect an unfettered abortion industry. And this is not the first time. The MMA actively opposed the Woman's Right to Know informed consent law, for example, which ensures that pregnant women are aware of basic facts before undergoing abortion.

One of the bills, vetoed yesterday by the governor, would require that abortion facilities be licensed to ensure minimal health standards and prevent the kind of dangerous practices uncovered elsewhere. The MMA says it "objected to a procedure-based approach to licensing." But the reason abortion centers are specified in the legislation is that they currently are effectively exempted (due to loopholes in the law) from the licensing requirements that govern other outpatient surgical centers. The bill simply corrects that gap in government oversight by treating abortion facilities (which perform common and invasive surgical procedures) the same as similar surgical centers. Regrettably, the MMA has sided with Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers who demand special treatment.

The second bill would require a physician to be physically present when prescribing the RU486 abortion drug, thus preventing "webcam abortions" in which RU486 is dispensed remotely after a conversation with the pregnant woman via videoconference. The MMA says: "Bill supporters have said that the legislation has been introduced ... to ensure a physician's presence in case the drug has an adverse effect on her [but] the greatest risk ... comes from sepsis and does not occur when the drug is initially taken but rather over the following two weeks." Actually, bill supporters argue that a doctor should be present to physically examine the woman for any risk factors prior to administering the chemical abortion. For instance, a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy can go undetected (and has, in at least two U.S. cases that resulted in death) because its symptoms mirror the expected side effects of RU486.

The MMA worries about the legislation's "implication for the use of telemedicine in Minnesota." But the bill's advocates have not criticized telemedicine itself or in general -- it can be and is used to extend legitimate health care to many people who need it. Administering RU486 via telemedicine is simply a misuse of this technology. RU486 is an elective abortion method, not health care; it does not treat any medical condition. And it carries serious risks to the health of women that are exacerbated when a doctor is not present.

The MMA complains that "these pieces of legislation inappropriately intrude on the practice of medicine in the state of Minnesota." They intrude on a largely profit-driven abortion industry by implementing certain safety requirements deemed important by the state Legislature, representing the people of Minnesota. That is the Legislature's business.

Dayton blocks licensing of abortion facilities

The following was released today, April 26.

ST. PAUL — Legislation to institute minimal safety standards at abortion facilities was vetoed today by Gov. Mark Dayton. The veto of the women's safety measure follows its overwhelming bipartisan approval by the Legislature with the backing of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL).

"This veto highlights Gov. Dayton's commitment to protecting the abortion industry, even when it results in putting women's health at risk," said MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach. "Abortion is one of the most common medical procedures in Minnesota, and there is no way for women to know if they are going to be in a safe or clean facility."

S.F. 1921 was authored by Rep. Mary Liz Holberg, R-Lakeville, and Sen. Claire Robling, R-Jordan, who sought to bring the state's six surgical abortion facilities in line with the state's other outpatient surgical centers. The bill would have required facilities that perform 10 or more abortions per month to be licensed, and authorized the state department of health to perform inspections of abortion facilities. In 2010, a total of 11,505 abortions were performed in the state.

"Women need to know that the Department of Health has zero oversight of abortion facilities and cannot ensure their safety, because Gov. Dayton has forbidden it," Fischbach continued.

Abortion facilities have been granted special exemption from licensing that governs other outpatient surgical centers in the state. Planned Parenthood and the ACLU testified against the bill in committee hearings, arguing that abortion facilities should remain unlicensed and uninspected. However, state lawmakers agreed that this exemption cannot be justified when it comes to safeguarding women.

In a letter to Dayton after the bill was approved by the Legislature, Holberg and Robling defended the requirements as reasonable and sensible.

"Prior to the legalization of abortion in 1973, supporters of abortion often argued that the procedure should be brought out of the back rooms in order to protect the well-being of women. Without state licensing and inspections, there is no guarantee that women's health is being protected," they wrote. "This proposed regulation is to provide protection before a dangerous situation develops."

Legislature expands safety net for newborn babies

The following news release was issued today, April 25.

ST. PAUL — Legislation expanding options for mothers at risk of harming their newborn babies was signed into law on Apr. 23. The lifesaving efforts of the bill's authors and the Legislature were praised by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), the state's oldest and largest pro-life organization.

"This is common-sense, compassionate legislation that will actually save precious lives, and we applaud the Legislature for passing it almost unanimously," said MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach.

The legislation was authored by Sen. Michelle Benson, R-Ham Lake, and Rep. Jim Abeler, R-Anoka. MCCL worked closely with the Minnesota Ambulance Association, which also provided significant leadership in drafting the changes. MCCL, the Minnesota Ambulance Association and others plan to publicize the law's new provisions.

A handful of women are vulnerable to abandoning or harming their newborn children in cases of severe stress or mental instability. Several newborn babies have been found in recent years after being drowned in the Mississippi River near Red Wing, for example.

Minnesota's Safe Place for Newborns law (Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 145.902) originally provided a woman, after giving birth, a three-day window in which she is allowed to place her newborn baby at a hospital and walk away, no questions asked. The newborn must be unharmed. Several babies have been presented at hospitals under the Safe Place for Newborns law.

The 2012 "Give Life a Chance" legislation widens the options for mothers of newborns under the state's Safe Place for Newborns law. A newborn may now be placed at a hospital, urgent care provider or with ambulance personnel (by calling 911) by the mother or a person with the mother’s permission. The law expands the relinquishment time period to seven days from birth.

"Give Life a Chance will save more lives, thanks to these greater accommodations for mothers who are at risk," Fischbach added. "No newborn baby in Minnesota should ever be harmed because the mother is not able to provide care."

Senate approves 'webcam abortion' ban, 39-25

The following is a news release issued today, April 24.

ST. PAUL — Legislation to ban "webcam abortions" was approved 39-25 by the Minnesota Senate late yesterday. The women's safety measure has the strong support of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), the state's oldest and largest pro-life organization.

H.F. 2341, authored by Sen. Paul Gazelka, R-Brainerd, would stop dangerous webcam abortions by requiring that a physician be physically present when administering the drugs for a chemical abortion. Webcam abortions involve the RU486 abortion drug, administered via video conference with an abortion provider in another location. The doctor talks with the woman, then presses a button which opens a drawer to remotely dispense the drug.

The doctor is never physically present in a webcam abortion to examine the woman for any problems, such as a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy or any other condition or factor, that would make this abortion procedure especially dangerous for her. Planned Parenthood began offering webcam abortions last year at its Rochester facility; women consult with a doctor in St. Paul.

"This legislation focuses primarily on the life of the mother," Gazelka said during the floor debate. "Currently in Minnesota, some chemical abortions are being performed without a physician physically present. Instead, the physician is watching via webcam from a different city or location."

The risks of RU486 can be severe: 14 women are known to have died in the U.S. after taking the drugs, according to the Food and Drug Administration. Last month, an Australian agency disclosed that a woman there died from an infection after taking RU486. A prominent gynecologist and advocate of the drug has called for a review of the drug's protocol.

At least six states, including North Dakota and Wisconsin, have already enacted webcam abortion bans, and other states are currently working to pass legislation to the same effect. Canada does not permit use of RU486 due to safety concerns.

"RU486 is not an aspirin; it's not a prescription. It's dangerous," Gazelka added. "This [requiring a physician to be present] may not be the most cost-effective way for Planned Parenthood to deliver abortions, but it certainly considers the life of the mother."

A companion bill was approved in the House on Apr. 18 on a vote of 80-48. The women's safety measure is expected to be sent to Gov. Mark Dayton soon.

"Governor Dayton should recognize that such a serious and life-altering procedure as abortion deserves the presence of a physician," said MCCL Legislative Associate Jordan Harris. "His veto would greatly increase the health risks to women who are administered this abortion method remotely without being examined by a physician."

Fact-checking the MPR fact-checkers on RU486 abortions

By Jordan Marie Harris

This week, the Minnesota House of Representatives took up a commonsense measure that would require a doctor to be physically present when administering the dangerous abortion drug RU486 (mifepristone). This would afford women the dignity of a physical exam and evaluation by a physician—to ensure that she is a good candidate for taking this drug—before undergoing the chemical abortion.

RU486 in the United States has resulted in more than 2,200 "adverse events," or serious complications, including the deaths of at least 14 women, according to the FDA. Planned Parenthood recently began using a dispensation scheme in which women in Rochester speak with an abortionist located in St. Paul via video conferencing, and are then remotely administered the drug.

During floor debate, Rep. Joyce Peppin, chief author of the bill to require physicians to be physically present when administering RU486, emphasized safety concerns and made this claim: "The drug is so dangerous that it was banned in places like Canada and China, places that are very liberal on abortion policies in general."

MPR's "PoliGraph," the news outlet's political fact-checking service, concludes that Rep. Peppin's statement "leans toward false." However, MPR misses some key facts about RU486 and abortion in these countries.

While other drugs can be used for chemical abortions in Canada, RU486 has never been approved, legalized, or made available—even though abortion in general is legal for any reason throughout all of pregnancy. The commercial importation into Canada of RU486 (an unauthorized drug) is illegal under the Food and Drugs Act.

A 2005 National Review of Medicine article explains some of the back-story: "In 2001, the only Canadian trial of mifepristone ... was suspended after the death of a woman from toxic shock brought on by a bacterial infection related to her abortion." The story of that young woman's death is told here. Canadians for Choice, a pro-choice group, acknowledges: "Unfortunately, RU-486 is not legal in Canada. Many opponents raised concerns about its safety because of the possibility to cause Clostridium sordellii infections and septic shock."

Rep. Peppin's comment about Canada is justifiable for the simple reason that RU486 is illegal there—it is not permitted under the law.

China is known for very liberal abortion policies and a coercive one-child law that often leads to sex-selection abortion and infanticide, in which female babies are killed simply because they are female. In 2001, China outlawed all pharmaceutical sales of RU486. This fact is the basis for Rep. Peppin's remark, yet it is never mentioned by MPR.

The State Drug Administration, charged with the oversight of drugs in China, explained the decision: "In order to guarantee patients' safety and protect their health, it is decided that no matter whether patients have a doctor's prescription or not, retail drug stores are forbidden to sell mifepristone tablets." This was reported under the headline "China Bans RU 486 Abortion Drug" in the Oct. 9, 2001, Beijing Morning Post. The story cited the fact that hospitals were left treating RU486 complications as a reason for the new policy. Admittedly, the ban only applied to drug stores.

It is clear that the health dangers of RU486 have not gone unnoticed by other countries, and they shouldn't be ignored in Minnesota, either. The risks inherent in RU486 are exacerbated when a physician is not physically present. Rep. Peppin's legislation is a reasonable attempt to safeguard the health of women from a risky practice introduced only recently by the state's leading performer and promoter of abortion, Planned Parenthood.

'October Baby' argument: Each of us was once a fetus

In October Baby, the main character, Hannah, learns that she was born after a failed abortion attempt. Now consider the following.

(1) Hannah is the same being who, at an earlier stage of life, was almost killed by abortion and was subsequently born prematurely and adopted by loving parents. Like all of us, she was once an embryo and a fetus, just as she was an infant, toddler and adolescent. This is precisely the reason for Hannah's distress upon learning the circumstances of her birth, and the distress (two decades later) of her birth mother. To have killed that fetus by abortion would have been to kill Hannah.

(2) Hannah ought to be loved and "wanted" simply because she is Hannah. Her adoptive parents don't love her for her health (which is imperfect and requires serious attention), intelligence, personality or accomplishments, nor for her age or independence. They love her irrespective of these things. They love her for her own sake.

(3) Because the fetal Hannah was Hannah (1), she deserved to be loved as such (2). And since the above two points are not particular to Hannah (each of us was once a fetus; each of us is valuable simply by virtue of who we are), we can extend this conclusion to all fetuses. They are valuable because they are human beings who as human beings deserve to be wanted and loved, regardless of age, size, dependency or any other morally trivial characteristic.

This argument, I suggest, is implicit in October Baby. And it's a good one (go here for more about this kind of argument). Every life is beautiful.

House approves licensing of abortion facilities; bill now headed to Gov. Dayton

The following news release was issued today, April 20.

ST. PAUL — Legislation to require licensure of abortion facilities was approved by the Minnesota House today on a bipartisan 80-47 vote. The vote on the measure seeking women's safety followed its approval by the Senate on Apr. 18; the bill has the strong support of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL).

S.F. 1921, authored by Rep. Mary Liz Holberg, R-Lakeville, would require facilities that perform 10 or more abortions per month to be licensed. The legislation would apply existing licensing requirements of outpatient surgical centers to abortion facilities. The bill also authorizes the state commissioner of health to perform inspections of abortion facilities, with no prior notice required.

"This common-sense legislation has been recognized by both the House and Senate as important for the safety of women," said MCCL Legislative Associate Andrea Rau. "There is no reason for abortion facilities to be given special exemption from licensing that governs other outpatient surgical centers in the state."

The need for the measure was brought to light by filthy conditions found at an abortion facility in Pennsylvania, which did not license or inspect abortion facilities. At least two women died, others contracted venereal diseases from unsanitary equipment, and babies born alive were killed by severing their spinal cords. Once discovered, the facility was called a "house of horrors" by grand jury investigators. S.F. 1921 would protect women from such dangers.

The requirement would apply to the state's six abortion facilities, which together perform the vast majority of all abortions in Minnesota. In 2010, a total of 11,505 abortions were performed in the state.

Planned Parenthood is the state's largest abortion provider. In 2010, it performed more than 4,000 abortions, or more than 75 per week. Ambulances have been called to Planned Parenthood's St. Paul abortion facility twice in recent months, bringing to light the need for inspection and licensing of such facilities.

Planned Parenthood and the ACLU testified against the bill in committee hearings, arguing that abortion facilities should remain unlicensed and uninspected.

The measure to license abortion facilities as other outpatient surgical centers now goes to Gov. Dayton for his consideration.

"The people of Minnesota have agreed that the Minnesota Department of Health should establish licensure of abortion facilities, and MCCL calls on Gov. Dayton to sign the bill," Rau added.

Senate approves abortion clinic licensing; House passes 'webcam abortion' ban

Today the Minnesota Senate approved the MCCL-backed bill to license and inspect abortion facilities on a bipartisan 43-23 vote. It will soon be heard in the House. Learn more in the MCCL news release here. (All news releases are listed here.)

Also today, on an 80-48 vote, the House passed the MCCL-backed bill to prohibit "webcam abortions" by requiring a physician to be physically present when administering an RU486 chemical abortion. A vote is expected soon in the Senate. Read the news release here.

One clarification should be made. In response to the webcam abortion ban, WCCO reporter Pat Kessler tweeted: "MN House passes bill to require MD to be in the room when a woman takes emergency contraceptive." Others have also tweeted or re-tweeted this claim.

No, that's false. Kessler and the others are confusing RU486 (mifepristone) with contraception. (Kessler's tweet has since been corrected.) Contraception prevents conception (hence the name); RU486 is a nonsurgical method of abortion used through the first nine weeks of gestation (the FDA has only approved it for use through seven weeks, but Planned Parenthood administers it later than that). We are not talking about a contraceptive pill. We are talking about an abortion drug that causes the death of a rapidly-developing unborn human being; a second drug, misoprostol, is taken about two days later to induce contractions that expel the dead child.

More information about RU486 -- and how its health risks are exacerbated when it is dispensed via telemedicine -- is included in our brochure, available online here.

Abortion facility licensing bill approved in final House hearing

The following news release was issued today, April 17.

ST. PAUL— Legislation to require licensure of abortion facilities was approved by the Minnesota House Ways and Means committee late yesterday. The vote on the measure seeking women's safety completed the hearing process for the bill, which has the strong support of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL).

H.F. 2340 (S.F. 1921), authored by Rep. Mary Liz Holberg, R-Lakeville, would require facilities that perform 10 or more abortions per month to be licensed. The legislation would apply licensing requirements of outpatient surgical centers to abortion providers, which are unlicensed and uninspected. The bill also authorizes the state commissioner of health to perform inspections of abortion facilities, with no prior notice required.

"House committee members have acknowledged that requiring abortion facilities to be licensed is entirely reasonable for the safety of women," said MCCL Legislative Associate Andrea Rau. "MCCL calls on Gov. Dayton to sign this much-needed legislation when it reaches his desk."

The need for the measure was brought to light by filthy conditions found at an abortion facility in Pennsylvania, which did not license or inspect abortion facilities. At least two women died, others contracted venereal diseases from unsanitary equipment, and babies born alive were killed by cutting their spinal cords. Once discovered, the clinic was called a "house of horrors" by grand jury investigators. H.F. 2340 would protect women from such dangers.

The requirement would apply to the state's seven abortion facilities, which together perform more than 98 percent of all abortions in Minnesota. In 2010, a total of 11,505 abortions were performed in the state.

The legislation originally directed the Minnesota Department of Health to establish licensing requirements for abortion facilities. The bill was amended to apply existing requirements of outpatient surgical centers to abortion facilities.

The abortion facilities licensing bill will now be heard on the floor of the House.

'October Baby' is testament to power of forgiveness

The low-budget indie film October Baby opened nationwide the same day as The Hunger Games and managed to finish in the top 10 at the box office. The New York Times calls it a "quiet hit" that is "making a dent at theaters across the country." Last weekend it expanded to more than 500 theaters, including eight in Minnesota, five of them in the Twin Cities metro area.

The movie follows Hannah (Rachel Hendrix, easily giving Jennifer Lawrence a run for her money), a college student who learns the unsettling truth about the circumstances of her birth and sets out to find answers. Filmmakers Jon and Andrew Erwin were inspired by the real-life story of Gianna Jessen, who survived a saline abortion and lives with cerebral palsy as a result (Gianna actually sings on the film's soundtrack).

October Baby is an impressive production, well-acted and emotionally satisfying, with surprising bits of humor mixed in -- "a film whose poignancy is hard to deny whatever side of the abortion debate you fall on," notes the Los Angeles Times. It is, more importantly, a moving testament to the value of every person and the liberating power of forgiveness. And 10 percent of the film's profits will go to the Every Life is Beautiful Fund to support "frontline organizations helping women facing crisis pregnancies, life-affirming adoption agencies, and those caring for orphans," according to the movie's website.

Those who have not seen October Baby should go -- and bring others. Go for both the entertainment value and the abortion-exposing, soul-healing, heart-softening message. And be sure to stay during the credits.

Maternal love as an argument against abortion

Countless pregnant women love (or grow to love) their unborn children. But we do not generally use this fact in any argument against abortion. (Abortion is wrong because it unjustly takes the life of an innocent human being who deserves respect and protection regardless of how others think or feel about her.) Consider, however, the following argument from Baylor University philosopher Alexander Pruss.

Many unborn children are loved as if they bear the kind of intrinsic value that would make killing them wrong. If those unborn children do not have such value, then those who love them are loving irrationally (or are otherwise mistaken or confused); but it is implausible to say that pregnant women are loving irrationally. Therefore (via modus tollens), those unborn children really do have intrinsic value that precludes killing them, and since there are no morally relevant differences between unborn children who are loved and those who are not (the opinion of others cannot determine their moral status), it follows that all unborn children are valuable and ought not be killed. So abortion is wrong.

The decisive premise, it seems to me, is that mothers are not mistaken when they love their unborn offspring. This intuition is so strong that I doubt many pro-choice advocates would deny it, and many have loved their own unborn children and surely thought themselves reasonable in doing so. Pruss writes:

It seems not only a sociologically natural kind of love, but a perfectly rational love. It would be implausible to suppose that the loving mother is in the throes of some conceptual confusion or is ignorant of some relevant fact. But if the love is perfectly rational and not ignorant, then the object of the love has at least the kind of value that it is loved as if it had. Therefore, plausibly, the fetus has the kind of value which justifies the mother's love. But the amount of value which the mother in her love predicates of the child is such as would make killing the child prima facie wrong. Hence, abortion is prima facie wrong.

Pruss goes on to answer a number of objections to this argument. The bottom line is that the apparent reasonableness of maternal love for unborn children is significant evidence that abortion is morally impermissible. To say that abortion is permissible, on the other hand, one would have to hold that perhaps a majority of pregnant women (by loving their unborn children as individuals who really matter) are behaving irrationally or out of ignorance or confusion!

Video: The prenatal eye 7 weeks after conception

Obamacare, abortion, and judicial activism

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments over the constitutionality of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare). The Court will likely issue its ruling in June.

The primary question under dispute is whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to compel every private citizen to purchase a particular commercial product (health insurance) -- an unprecedented move made by Pres. Barack Obama's health care law. Defenders of Obamacare claim that Congress does have this power, so the Court should not strike down the legislation as unconstitutional.

Yet many of these Obamacare defenders -- including Obama himself -- think the Court was right to strike down all of the democratically-decided state laws on abortion in Roe v. Wade and to reaffirm that position in subsequent rulings. They think that state legislatures do not have the power under the Constitution to prohibit or even significantly limit elective abortion.

Look at these two cases. To say that state abortion bans are constitutionally impermissible is absurd. There is simply no support for a right to abortion on demand in the text or history of the Constitution. Indeed, states were banning abortion at the same time (the latter half of the 19th century) they were approving the very constitutional provisions the Court later said precluded bans on abortion!

On the other hand, to say that Obamacare violates the Constitution seems quite plausible. The Constitution limits Congress (as opposed to state legislatures, which are afforded much greater freedom under the Tenth Amendment) to certain enumerated powers, which on the face of them do not include the power exerted under the Obama health care law. Obamacare is an unprecedented assertion of federal government control.

Speaking recently about the possibility of the Court striking down his signature accomplishment, Obama urged "judicial restraint" and said that the Court should not "[overturn] a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." (Obama later clarified that he does not deny the Court's power of judicial review.)

Now look at another case. In Gonzales v. Carhart the Court upheld (i.e., did not overturn) the democratically-decided federal law prohibiting partial-birth abortion. Obama fiercely condemned the ruling (and he has called partial-birth abortion a "legitimate medical procedure"). Yet the partial-birth abortion ban passed with large bipartisan majorities and broad public support; Obamacare passed (contrary to the president's claim) by a tiny margin on a purely partisan vote against broad public opposition, leading to huge losses by the president's party in that fall's elections.

Obama claimed that overturning Obamacare would be "judicial activism," saying: "I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, here's a good example."

No, that's not what judicial activism is -- it is not the same as judicial review. Properly understood, judicial activism is the substitution of personal policy opinion for the Constitution. It is making law rather than faithfully interpreting and applying it. As the Wall Street Journal explains:

Judicial activism is not something that happens every time the Supreme Court overturns a statute. The Justices owe deference to Congress and the executive, but only to the extent that the political branches stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. Improper activism is when the Court itself strays beyond the founding document to find new rights or enhance its own authority without proper constitutional grounding.

Judicial activism is the philosophy that seems to characterize the president's various judicial opinions. Obama wants the Court to strike down constitutional laws (e.g., any conceivable limits on abortion) and uphold unconstitutional ones (Obamacare). He favors partial-birth abortion, so he wants Court-mandated partial-birth abortion on demand. He favors unprecedented federal government control over health care, so he wants the Court to allow it.

In a 2001 interview, Obama advocated "break[ing] free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution." Not via the American people deciding to amend the Constitution -- which is how our Republic's governing document may be legitimately changed -- but by a handful of unelected judges deciding to impose their own, more "enlightened" vision in place of the Constitution, without the consent of the governed.

That is the radical Obama approach. It's part of what is at stake in November.

Legislation to broaden lifesaving Positive Alternatives program becomes law

The following news release was issued yesterday, April 4.

ST. PAUL — With overwhelming bipartisan support in the Minnesota House and Senate, a measure to broaden eligibility for the Positive Alternatives grant program has become law. The bill was signed into law today with the support of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for life (MCCL), the state's oldest and largest pro-life organization.

Additional programs that offer help to women in need, such as pregnancy care centers and maternity homes, will now be able to apply for grants.

"More programs helping women have begun since Positive Alternatives grants were first awarded in 2006," said MCCL Legislative Associate Andrea Rau. "We are pleased to see that nearly all legislators and the governor recognize the value of Positive Alternatives in providing support to women."

The new change (H.F. 2676) modifies the eligibility requirements for Positive Alternatives grants by permitting a program in existence for at least one year as of July 1, 2011, rather than 2005, to be eligible for funding. Positive Alternatives has provided grants since July 2006 to programs that help pregnant women in need by providing them with the resources and support to bring her child to term.

All programs awarded grants must provide for essential services in the following areas: medical attention for the woman and the unborn child, nutritional services, housing assistance, adoption services, education and employment assistance, child care assistance, and parenting education and support services. At a modest cost of $2.4 million per year, the program served 25,000 women and their families in its first four years.

"With additional programs eligible to apply for grants, our hope is that more women across the state will receive the help they need," Rau added. "Positive Alternatives has already helped to improve the lives of thousands of women and their families in Minnesota, and we know that these life-changing programs will continue to provide valuable services within their communities."

April issue of MCCL News online

The March/April 2012 issue of MCCL News is now available online. It is only available to registered NetCommunity members who are also current donors. Be sure to keep your membership current by making at least an annual donation to MCCL. Your support is appreciated!

The latest issue covers topics including:

• Pro-life legislation making its way through the Minnesota Legislature
• MCCL's Student Day at the Capitol
• Obamacare's assault on conscience rights and expansion of abortion
• Planned Parenthood's taxpayer funding
• Human fetuses used as research material
• Abortion and the role of government