LIVE WEDNESDAY: Watch FRC's Online Pro-Life Conference‏

As thousands of pro-lifers brave the elements to descend upon the national mall in Washington today, FRC is proud to host the seventh annual ProLifeCon -- the premier conference for pro-life bloggers and social media activists. The conference is designed to bring together pro-life online activists and government officials, to educate them about the cutting edge of the movement, and to empower them to better engage and impact their own online communities.

This year's speaker lineup includes Sen. Rick Santorum, The Duggar Family, Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), FRC's Arina Grossu & Anna Higgins, Blogger Jill Stanek, March for Life Education & Defense Fund's Bethany Goodman, Students for Life of America's Kristan Hawkins, Radiance Foundation's Ryan Bomberger, Care Net's Roland Warren, and more. If you're in town for the March for Life, join us in person today from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. (EST) at FRC headquarters or watch the live webcast of the entire event. The live webcast will run from 8:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. ET. If you miss a speaker, don't worry -- the entire webcast will be available at the same link for archived viewing later today.

Here's the event schedule:
8:30 a.m.: Arina Grossu, Director, Center for Human Dignity, Family Research Council and Anna Higgins, Senior Fellow for Life Studies, Family Research Council
8:34 a.m.: Bethany Goodman, Assistant Director, March for Life Education & Defense Fund
8:47 a.m.: Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.)
9:02 a.m.: Joe Carter, Communications Director, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
9:14 a.m.: Ryan Bomberger, Founder and COO, The Radiance Foundation
9:27 a.m.: Brian Fisher, Founder, Online for Life
9:37 a.m.: Jill Stanek, JillStanek.com
9:50 a.m.: Jane Fuller, Director, Assist Pregnancy Center
10:00 a.m.: Jason Jones, Movie to Movement
10:14 a.m.: Kristan Hawkins, President, Students for Life of America
10:24 a.m.: Roland Warren, CEO, Care Net
10:34 a.m.: Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.)
10:49 a.m.: Dr. Henry Potrykus, Senior Fellow, MARRI
11:00 a.m.: The Duggar Family, Stars of TLC's "19 Kids and Counting"
11:13 a.m.: Rick Santorum, Founder, Patriot Voices
11:25 a.m.: Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council

If you're on Twitter, you can follow the ProLifeCon action using hashtag #ProLifeCon.Please join us today, and learn how to take a stronger stand for life online!

 Click here to watch the webcast of ProLifeCon 2014- a Pro-Life Conference to help you better stand for life online.

RNC Gets Its Marching Orders on Life

This year, the Republican National Committee (RNC) isn't just talking about the importance of the March for life -- it's showing it. For the first time ever, Chairman Reince Priebus announced that the RNC would postpone the start of the party's winter meeting so that more Republicans could attend the March on January 22. In announcing the change, Priebus told the Washington Times, "I saw that there was a real interest among a significant portion of our members to attend and support the rally for life. This is a core principle of our party. It was natural for me to support our members and our principles."

To make the event even more appealing to members, the RNC is chartering a bus to and from the March for the roughly 170 people who want to participate. It's a welcome gesture from an organization that hasn't always put social issues at the top of its priority list. Jeanne Monahan, the President of March for Life and a former director at FRC, was grateful for the RNC's flexibility and said her organization was "pleased that Chairman Reince Priebus recognizes the importance of the life issue and has given it priority in the Committee's calendar." Yesterday, Chairman Priebus joined me on "Washington Watch" to talk about the scheduling decision and the importance of the life issue to the RNC. To hear his interview, click here.

On Abortion, GOP Puts Tax Dollars in Life Savings

From Tony Perkins

Family Research Council

Sending in your taxes shouldn't mean signing over your beliefs. But when it comes to issues like abortion, that's exactly what the Obama administration is asking America to do. As pro-lifers, we have fought to give the medical community a way out of procedures they object to. As taxpayers, we deserve that same protection. No one should be forced into partnership with an industry that spills the blood of innocent unborn humans. And if Congressmen Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) get their way, no one will.

For years, they've been fighting to build a wall between taxpayer dollars and pro-abortion programs. In 2011, their "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" sailed through the House only to die at the Senate's front door. This year, the duo is trying again. With more than 145 co-sponsors, H.R. 7 would ensure that you and I aren't reluctant shareholders in the nation's abortion business -- in ObamaCare, domestic spending, and even foreign aid.

Yesterday, the House debated the bill in a feisty hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee. As always, emotions were close to the surface as the two parties sniped back and forth on the need for such a law. Not surprisingly, Democrats spent most of their time trying to persuade people that the bill would somehow ban abortion. Don't believe it. In fact, the legislation explicitly states that anyone who wants health insurance with abortion coverage or supplemental abortion coverage can purchase it -- just not with federal dollars.

Congressman Jerrold Nadler (R-N.Y.), who never misses an opportunity to mislead people on abortion-neutral legislation, insisted that "H.R. 7 is a radical departure from current tax treatment of medical expenses and insurance coverage, and it is neither justifiable nor necessary to prevent federal funding of abortion." No, Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-Va.) fired back, "The real radical departure here is the fact that now we will have, for the first time, federal subsidies of health insurance policies [that include abortion] in America."

With ObamaCare barreling down the track, people on both sides of the issue recognize the importance of pulling the plug on taxpayer-involvement. At last check, a whopping 67% of Americans agreed. Unfortunately for them, the health care law has only entangled taxpayers deeper in the web of abortion. From the government's abortion surcharge to the abortion-heavy D.C. plans (which FRC's own Anna Higgins exposed), Americans are more implicated than ever in the procedure that a majority oppose.

Another one of the Left's convenient talking points is that the country doesn't need H.R. 7 because it has the Hyde Amendment (which strips taxpayer-funding of abortion in appropriations bills). But unlike H.R. 7, the Hyde Amendment has to be reauthorized every year to stay in effect. The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" would save Congress from that annual fight and create a permanent, government-wide ban on abortion funding -- not just for appropriations bills, but health care bills, overseas aid, and anything else that Congress subsidizes. Susan Woods, the Democrats' witness at Thursday's hearing, also claimed the bill would end private coverage of abortion -- which is ridiculous on its face. This may come as a shock to liberals, but just because the government doesn't fund something doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

Despite what the Left would have you believe, the Smith-Lipinski measure wouldn't outlaw abortion, it would just make the government neutral on the question of taxpayer-funding. That's what Americans want -- and it's what our unborn citizens deserve.

For more on this important conscience preserving bill and what it could mean for the nation, don't miss next Wednesday's policy lecture (featured here in the Washington Examiner) at FRC headquarters (801 G Street, NW, Washington, D.C.) with one of the legislation's sponsors, Rep. Chris Smith. Click here to register. If the Left wants to know why the GOP is "still talking about abortion," it's simple. Because Americans are still forced to fund it! Learn what you can do to change that on January 15.

Stem Cells, Cloning and Human Embryos

Understanding the Ethics and Opportunity of Scientific Research

 By David Prentice
 Senior Fellow for Life Sciences 

Stem cells remain a mystery to most people, even though the debate over stem cell research, treatments, ethics, and funding has led to legal, legislative, scientific, religious, and policy debates.

This publication offers a general overview of stem cells-their sources, practical uses and potential, and ethical problems. Stem cell research is a subject with which everyone should be familiar, because the path we choose for stem cells has profound implications for medical research, health care innovations, and public policy.
 
What is a stem cell? 

A stem cell is an unspecialized cell capable of giving  rise to a specialized cell of the body, such as a skin cell,  a blood cell, a muscle cell, or a nerve cell. A stem cell is also capable of renewing itself, ensuring the pool of  stem cells in the body is not depleted. Stem cells fall into three main categories that we will explore below:

continue reading at http://downloads.frc.org


Dr. David Prentice is Senior Fellow for Life Sciences at  Family Research Council and Adjunct Professor of Molecular Genetics, John Paul II Institute, Catholic University of America.  He was formerly Professor of Life Sciences at Indiana State  University, and Adjunct Professor of Medical and Molecular Genetics, Indiana University School of Medicine. He is a  Founding Member of Do No Harm: The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics and an Advisory Board Member for the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity.

Secrecy Clause Plays Santa Claus to Abortion Crowd

From Tony Perkins, President
Family Research Council

Don't expect Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Congressman John Shimkus (R-Mich.) to be sharing a cup of Christmas wassail anytime soon. The two leaders got into a heated exchange during the HHS chief's latest turn in the House's witness chair. In a scene eerily similar to October 30 when Sebelius first testified, Shimkus pressed the ObamaCare boss to come clean on taxpayer-funded abortion.

"Madame Secretary, you promised last time you were here that you would provide me a national list of those [plans] who cover and those who do not cover abortion and abortion services. We have yet to receive that list," he said. "All we're asking is for you to keep your promise." An irritable Sebelius fired back, "Sir, it is on the website." What she didn't say is that customers have to buy their insurance plans before they find it. The process is so convoluted that Congressman Chris Smith (R-N.J.) had to introduce a bill just to guarantee that Americans knew what kind of procedures they were paying for. "It was incredibly confusing, if not impossible, to find out," Smith told reporters last week. Even Congress, with great resources at its disposal, couldn't get to the bottom of their insurance benefits. "That is what's happening in state after state. People cannot find out if plans on the exchange include abortion."

Michigan has just the solution: opting out of the abortion coverage altogether. This week, state leaders agreed that the people of Michigan shouldn't have to foot the bill for someone else's abortion -- or anyone's for that matter. Governor Rick Snyder (D), who vetoed the same measure last year, will have a tough time objecting this time around, especially with such lopsided votes in the statehouse. If the policy stands up, Michigan will become the 24^th state to ban abortion from the state exchange -- building the pressure for the other half of the country to do the same.

For now, expanding taxpayer-funded abortion may be the only ObamaCare goal the President has reached. Based on the latest numbers, the government is 70% behind on enrollments for the federal exchange. According to the official ticker, just 365,000 people (almost a third of them from California) have signed up for ObamaCare since it launched (And even that's a generous number since that no one knows how many have actually paid!) Several states are still woefully behind, with Oregon bringing up the caboose at a measly 44 applicants.

Of course, the government knows as well as we do, that it's only a matter of time before more Americans lose their insurance and have no place else to turn. And there's the irony. The President demanded this law to help the "49 million" uninsured -- and by passing it, 80 million will be worse off! But to hear Sebelius tell it, losing your insurance is the best thing that could happen to a person. Not everyone is unhappy that their plans are cancelled, Sebelius told members yesterday.

Well, they will be once they see the alternative. Not so fast. If you thought ObamaCare was unpopular before, wait until Americans experience the deductible sticker shock. On the cheapest option the exchange offers, the Bronze plan, the lowest deductible is $5,081 a year. As the Wall Street Journal explains, that's a 42% increase over the average $3,589 pre-ObamaCare deductible. To put it in perspective, Leslie Scism and Tim Martin use this example. "The patient's typical share of having a baby through normal delivery -- $6,150... would be almost entirely an out-of-pocket expense for a person holding the bronze policy [with the $5,081 deductible]." The patients' portion is so high that many Americans won't be able to afford it. The only other option is buying a more expensive plan with a lower deductible, but either way, policy-holders are paying more.

"The anger is going to grow," warns Jamie Court of Consumer Watchdog, "because people are really stretched to buy these policies, then they're going to have to reach into their pocket for another five grand before it does anything for them." It all adds up to a health insurance powder keg, where the people who need insurance will buy it -- and the people who don't (like younger, healthier Americans) won't. In the end, it's an unsustainable system. But then, that's what conservatives have said all along.

Use this link for more info on the Family Research Council http://www.frc.org/mission-statement

Telling Secrets on Abortion Coverage

From Tony Perkins, President
Family Research Council

As Congress debates ObamaCare, one issue that almost stopped the law in 2009 -- yet still receives scant media coverage -- is the law's subsidies for abortion coverage. ObamaCare is funded through mandatory spending so as to avoid the Hyde Amendment, the provision which stops appropriated funds for the Department of Health and Human Services from paying for abortion or even subsidizing plans with abortion coverage. The President promised when the health care bill passed that it would not cover abortion, but like FRC warned during the debate over ObamaCare, buried deep within the 2,700 pages is language Nancy Pelosi was hoping Americans would never read, the abortion surcharge scheme. That's right! If an insurer decides to cover abortion in its plan, and the government subsidizes people's premiums in that plan, every single person is required to pay an extra abortion surcharge!

Adding insult to injury, the same section also requires that all information about the abortion coverage and surcharge only be given at the time enrollees receive their overall benefits package. The law states: "coverage of the services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i) [elective abortion] shall provide a notice to enrollees, only as part of the summary of benefits and coverage explanation, at the time of enrollment, of such coverage." And the same secrecy clause applies to the abortion surcharge. If a person wonders why they are paying for their premiums as well as a separate small fee, the insurer may only provide information about the entire cost of the plan -- not how much they are paying for abortion. To put a spotlight on this abortion secrecy clause, Members held a bipartisan press conference today announcing new legislation titled the "Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2013." Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Penn.) and pro-life Democrat Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) introduced this bill to ensure transparency. The Smith/Pitts/Lipinski bill at least will let Americans know whether they are paying for elective abortion or not under ObamaCare.


 Tony Perkins is president of the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council. He is a former member of the Louisiana legislature where he served for eight years, and he is recognized as a legislative pioneer for authoring measures like the nation's first Covenant Marriage law.

Abortion Coverage for Congress?

 Family Research Council

We've alerted you before to Obamacare's pro-abortion guerrilla tactics, the secretive abortion surcharge and health plan accounting gimmicks. It appears the administration is up to it again!

Recently the federal government's human resources department, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), issued a proposed rule to help subsidize healthcare for Congressional staff and Members of Congress being forced onto the Obamacare state exchanges. The kicker is those federal dollars may now go to pay for plans offered on those exchanges that include abortion coverage.

There's been a longstanding ban on federal funds going to pay for abortion in Congressional and federal healthcare plans, but it now appears the administration is pushing a new abortion subsidy. The OPM plans to use its authority found in the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) to contribute premium support to plans offered on the state exchanges that cover elective abortion.

The administration claims it will comply with the law prohibiting federal funds from going to abortion coverage, but healthcare experts and Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), the author of the FEHBP ban, remain skeptical since OPM rule does not restrict Members and staff from receiving contributions if they choose plans with abortion coverage.

If experience is any guide, where abortion is not explicitly prohibited it's implicitly allowed. If the Administration plans to respect current law it should be an easy lift to include a ban in the proposed regulations, if for no other reason than to clarify an ambiguity.

That's what we're asking.

Right now the OPM is soliciting the public to comment on the new rule. Join us in telling the administration via public comment to quit hiding behind arcane regulations and bring this issue into the sunlight by explicitly prohibiting Members of Congress and their staff from receiving contributions through FEHBP for plans on the healthcare law's state exchanges that include abortion coverage.

Please provide a public comment to stop the Obama Administration from including abortion in Congressional Healthcare plans 

Big Apple Parents Beware

  

From Tony Perkins, President

Family Research Council

From trans fats to Big Gulps, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has insisted that the city's interest in "public health" excuses his overreach on things like dietary choices. This seems a bit hypocritical for a mayor who just last year told a crowd, "The government should get out of your personal life!" 

Unfortunately, the Mayor's duplicity doesn't stop with targeting those who frequent the city's restaurants. Parents should also beware.

The New York Times reported today that the city is now distributing free "morning after" pills in more than 50 high school buildings. In 13 of the schools in which the city actually runs the clinic (as opposed to a local health clinic), an opt-out form was provided for parents to sign. As is typical, not every parent saw the form and several students even admitted to a reporter that they had not bothered to pass the opt-out form to their parents. Shockingly, during the 2011-2012 school year alone, about 5,500 girls were given Plan B.

Anna Higgins, director of FRC's Center for Human Dignity, was quoted in the The New York Times story, "The moral and physical consequences to this premature sexual behavior are very real. They need to be addressed by the person who knows the child and who loves the child best, which is the parent." This is especially true when it comes to a drug that hasn't been tested by the FDA to demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of the pills on young girls. Even President Obama as the father of two girls has recognized the potential dangers of stocking Plan B "alongside the bubble gum or batteries."

Rather than addressing a public health problem, the Mayor is creating a new one. How's this for harm: Young people under 25 are infected with about half of the sexually transmitted infections (STIs) nationwide -- and Plan B doesn't protect against a single one. Not only has Plan B had zero impact on teen pregnancy rates, but a 2010 study found that it's partially responsible for a spike in adolescent STIs. Surely, moms and dads have a right to help their daughters considering the risks. 

Unfortunately, the trends will only change when leaders recognize that involving parents in the decision-making process is the best birth control of all.