click here for Today's News & Views

 AUGUST 2005
Vol. 32, No. 8


Supreme Court to Hear Ayotte Case November 30

   November 30 has been set as the date for the United States Supreme Court to hear Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New.
England. In Ayotte, the newly constituted Court will hear the challenge to New Hampshire's 2003 parental notification law.

   The measure, which enjoyed widespread bipartisan support, requires that abortionists may not perform an abortion on an unemancipated minor until "at least 48 hours after written notice of the pending abortion" has been delivered to one of her parents. This requirement is waived if the "attending abortion provider certifies in the pregnant minor's medical record that the abortion is necessary to prevent the minor's death and there is insufficient time to provide required notice."

  The law, signed by then Governor Craig Benson in June 2003, was to take effect in December. However, in November, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, Concord Feminist Health Center, Feminist Health Center of Portsmouth, and a private physician successfully filed a complaint with the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire for a declaratory judgment that the act was unconstitutional and an injunction to prevent its enforcement once it was to become effective.

   Last November the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston agreed with the lower court. Both cited the absence of an explicit exception to protect the mother's health. As required by prior Supreme Court decisions, the law also contains a judicial bypass by which minors can avoid telling their parents by going to a judge.

   The law was closely modeled on the Minnesota law upheld by the Supreme Court in Hodgson v. Minnesota (1990). The law has saved many lives.

Continue article...


You can help us defeat pro-abortion attacks
Unfair Attacks Begin in Earnest Against Judge John Roberts

There have been a lot of "theories" about the recent Supreme Court nomination. 

Theories about who would retire from the court.  Theories about who the new nominee would be, with pundits claiming "inside information"-- only to be proved wrong.

There have been theories about the nominee's politics, or how he would vote once on the court. 

But one thing was never theoretical.  Whoever President Bush named to the U.S. Supreme Court, pro-abortion groups were going to attack. 

They were pre-programmed to do so. Like attack dogs let loose from the leash, they could only respond to whomever was nominated by viciously and relentlessly attacking their prey, in this case Federal Appeals Court Judge John Roberts.

Roberts, by all accounts, is a good and decent man of deep faith who loves his family and has a deep respect for his profession, the law. 

So perhaps it's not surprising, knowing the modus operandi of our pro-abortion opponents over the years that the first attacks, or "concerns" as the media likes to call them, have come against Judge Roberts' family, his faith, and his view of the law. 

Continue article...



 

From the President

Wanda Franz, Ph.D.

A MASSIVE DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN FOR EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH

On July 10, 2005, about 36 million households received Parade magazine as a Sunday supplement. The cover page was emblazoned with “Now…what the American people think about Stem Cell Research—A New Parade/Research!America Health Poll.”  Inside, readers found Micah Morrison’s article about “the state of stem cell research around the world” and a poll that is the cleverest piece of propaganda yet in support of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).  

Morrison reviews the state of ESCR in various countries and suggests that ESCR in the United States is coming up short.

To his credit, Morrison states that “[t]he promise of embryonic stem cell science remains just that—a promise.  Adult stem cells, derived primarily from blood, have helped thousands with leukemia and genetic disorders.  Embryonic stem cell research, still relatively new, has yet to produce any groundbreaking cell therapy cures—and may never, some critics say.  But that hasn’t stopped scientists from believing in their potential.”
 

Read Dr. Franz's Entire Column


Complete NRL News
2004 Subject Index



NRL News
Archive

1997
DECEMBER 9, 1997

1998
JANUARY 1998
FEBRUARY 11, 1998
MARCH 11, 1998
APRIL 14, 1998
MAY 7, 1998
JULY 8, 1998
JUNE 9, 1998
AUGUST 12, 1998
SEPTEMBER 28, 1998
OCTOBER 12, 1998
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
DECEMBER 10, 1998


1999
JANUARY 22, 1999
FEBRUARY 19, 1999
MARCH 15, 1999
APRIL 8, 1999
MAY 11, 1999
JUNE 10, 1999
JULY 6, 1999
AUGUST 10, 1999
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
OCTOBER 12, 1999
NOVEMBER 1999
DECEMBER 1999

2000
January 2000
February 2000
March 2000
April 2000
May 2000
June 2000
July 2000
August 2000
September 2000
October 2000
November 2000
December 2000

2001
January 2001
February 2001
March 2001
April 2001
May 2001
June 2001
July 2001
August 2001
September 2001
October 2001
November 2001
December 2001

2002
January 2002
February 2002
March 2002
April 2002

May 2002

June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
November 2002
December 2002

2003
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003

2004
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
J
une 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004

December 2004

2005
January 2005

February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005


Subscribe Today to NRL News

Click here for ordering information