The study comes from Finland and was published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Dr. Randall O'Bannon of National Right to Life tells OneNewsNow that what the public typically sees from the abortion industry is a claim that RU-486, also known as Mifeprex, is a safe and simple process for abortions.

"But this latest study from Finland shows that at least 20 percent of the women that use RU-486, the abortion pill, they suffer from at least one significant complication, and in many cases, from two complications," O'Bannon reports.

The three most significant problems are hemorrhaging, infection and incomplete abortions, which are the same troubles patients face in surgical abortions. Resulting from the chemical method, 15.6 percent of those undergoing this form of abortion hemorrhaged while 1.7 percent encountered infection and 6.7 percent experienced incomplete abortions.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday morning indicates that 61 percent of the public opposes using public money for abortions for women who can not afford the procedure, with 37 percent in favor of allowing the use of federal funds.

And by a 51 percent to 45 percent margin, those questioned in the survey think that women who get abortions should pay the full costs out of their own pocket, even if they have private health insurance and no federal funds are involved.

On June 17, 2009, Caitlin Bruce filed a suit against Hodari and his assistant, "Victor", over an incident that took place at Hodari's Flint, Michigan, abortion clinic in April, 2008. In that suit, Ms. Bruce alleges that she went to Hodari's clinic seeking an abortion, but before the procedure began, she changed her mind and decided against it. She notified Hodari that she no longer wanted the abortion.

However, Hodari and his assistant, Victor, forcibly restrained Ms. Bruce, holding her down. Ms. Bruce screamed "Stop, stop, I don't want this," but her mouth was covered to muffle her pleas while Hodari forced the abortion upon her.

Included in the suit are six counts against Hodari, including lack of informed consent/medical malpractice, battery, fraud, misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and ethnic/gender intimidation.

More than 10 faculty members e-mailed Douglas Freeman High School Superintendent Patrick Russo, saying they opposed the appearance of Pam Stenzel, founder of Enlighten Communications. NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia and the local chapter of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network also voiced opposition.

Principal Anne L. Poates gave parents the choice to opt their children out of the session.

"No, it does not present all sides of this issue," Poates wrote in an e-mail to staff. "It presents one choice - abstinence - as an important choice for teenagers in a way that seems to reach them and have a lasting impact."

The girl, identified in court papers as C.H., says she asked the Bridgeton High School principal last month for permission to join in the Pro Life Day of Silent Solidarity, a worldwide protest organized each year by Stand True, a ministry in Troy, Ohio. But the principal said no, telling her she couldn't do anything "religious," according to her lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Camden by a lawyer hired by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based legal group that takes on religious freedom cases on behalf of Christians.[..]

ADF senior counsel David Cortman says his group has intervened in dozens of cases across the country over the six years the protest has been held and has filed suits in about a dozen. He said some have been successful and others are still pending.

Cortman said the group has heard from students barred from protesting last month at two other New Jersey schools, as well as schools in Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas and Idaho.

When schools bar the protests, he said, they usually cite the separation of church and state — which his group says is not in the Constitution.

"The school district basically held that there is no religion allowed in school, which violates the students' First Amendment rights," Cortman said.

In the Bridgeton case, the student planned to remain silent on Oct. 20, except when called on in class at her public school. She also wanted to wear an armband with the word "life" on it and to hand out anti-abortion pamphlets. Some students who participate in the protest put tape across their mouths to show they're speaking for the unborn, who can't speak for themselves, Cortman said.

This is not a political issue. It's a human rights issue and a women's rights issue. On April 22 of this year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned forced abortion and forced sterilization in China, saying that they are "absolutely unacceptable." It does not matter whether you are pro-choice or pro-life on this issue. No one supports forced abortion, because it is not a choice.

When we say, "forced abortion," what do we mean? At the Novembeer 10 hearing, we heard the heart-wrenching testimony of "Wujuan" (not her real name) who was a victim of China's One Child Policy in 2005. Wujuan went into hiding when she became pregnant because she did not have a birth permit. She brought her pregnancy to term in hiding. A neighbor found her and told her that her father-in-law was being beaten daily and might soon die if she didn't give herself up. She was caught in a terrible choice: the life of her father-in-law, or the life of her baby. As she agonized about this, the Family Planning Police discovered her hiding place, broke into her shack, and dragged her out for a forced abortion. When the oxytocin injection failed to induce labor, they forced her onto an operating table and cut her full term baby to pieces with scissors while she was fully awake. When the surgery was complete, the doctor dumped the small body into a trash can. Wujuan says that a part of her died forever at that moment.

• Wrongful death due to bleeding from a careless abortion procedure
• Perforation of the uteri of several women during abortion procedures
• Misdiagnosis of pregnancy and age of the unborn child
• Careless performance of blood tests and follow-up care

• Joe Scheidler, National Director, Pro-Life Action League
• Julie Grisalano, Sidewalk counselor at Planned Parenthood
• Catherine Mieding, Sidewalk counselor

The ad, which is presented as a stand-up comedy routine, is paid for by the Center For Reproductive Rights. It is slated to air on cable networks in the Washington, DC, market and on Internet news sites starting Tuesday.[..]

The Center for Reproductive Rights is pushing back on the notion that subsidized private insurance should follow the FEHBP model by circulating a statement from D.J. Feldman, a federal employee denied insurance coverage after a termination of a anencephalic fetus.

Feldman said the denial of abortion coverage surprised and shocked her.

"That's when I learned just how punishing, invasive, and painful federal policy is when it comes to women's lives. A decision that should have been left between me and my doctor was made instead by politicians," said Feldman in a statement circulated by the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele learned of the policy's abortion coverage Thursday through a news report and immediately instructed staff to inform the insurance carrier that the RNC wanted to opt out of elective abortion coverage, RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said.

"Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose," Steele said in a statement. "I don't know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled."

Gitcho said the policy has been in effect since 1991.

A memo earlier from RNC Chief of Staff Ken McKay to the organization's members said Steele was taking the issue very seriously and "has been engaged by phone on this issue."

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), in a November 9 op-ed on the Politico Web site, said that in light of heavy pressure from USCCB against federal funding for abortion, the Internal Revenue Service should investigate whether the organization exceeded the limitations of its tax-exempt status – a move that could lead the Internal Revenue Service to revoke that status.

Woolsey's comments came after USCCB lobbied pro-life Democrats to support the efforts of Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who sponsored an amendment prohibiting federal funding of abortion through any of the health insurance subsidies created by the House health care bill.[...]

Woolsey – who co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus – said the USCCB should have stayed out of the legislative process: "The role the bishops played in the pushing of the Stupak amendment, which unfairly restricts access for low-income women to insurance coverage of abortion, was more than mere advocacy," she wrote in the Politico piece.

Woolsey said the IRS should treat the bishops' lobbying efforts with the same scrutiny it applies to religious groups that involve themselves in elections. Non-profits, including religious groups, are prohibited from taking sides in political campaigns and can lose their tax-exempt status if they do.

"The IRS is less restrictive about church involvement in efforts to influence legislation than it is about involvement in campaigns and elections," Woolsey admitted. "Given the political behavior of USCCB in this case, maybe it shouldn't be."

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee sent out an e-mail challenge Wednesday to its members, saying it could air anti-Stupak ads online in Michigan if it raised $10,000. In under five hours, $12,107 had been pledged from 425 contributors, with more money being accepted, according to www.boldprogressives.org.

The proposed online anti-Stupak ad pictures a distressed-looking young woman, with the text, "Women, not sure what to do with your body? Rep. Bart Stupak will tell you."

• Recognize the rights of pro-life citizens to protest abortion and offer alternatives.
• Provide special First Amendment and non-discriminatory law enforcement training to police officers in collaboration with pro-lifers.
• Amend two ordinances related to parades and residential picketing to make them less restrictive of Constitutionally-protected public protests.
• Refrain from arresting pro-life protestors for trespassing if they are walking or standing on the Planned Parenthood side of the access road in front of the facility.
• Concede pro-lifers’ right to post a reasonable number of signs in the ground during protests and vigils.
• Remove signs erected on Oakhurst Drive in 2007 prohibiting protest activity

While the Chinese Communist Party insists that abortions are voluntary under the nation's one-child policy, electronic documentation recently smuggled out of the country tells a different story.

Congressional members of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission heard some of that story Tuesday, two days before President Obama was slated to leave for Asia, including China, to discuss economic issues. Among evidence provided by two human rights organizations, ChinaAid and Women's Rights Without Frontiers, were tales of pregnant women essentially being hunted down and forced to submit to surgery or induced labor.

Reggie Littlejohn, founder and president of the Frontiers group, told the commission that China's one-child policy "causes more violence against women and girls than any other official policy on Earth."[...]

Here's the question Littlejohn insists we consider: What really happens to a woman who doesn't have a "birth permit" and has an "out of plan" pregnancy?

The answer is simple and brutal: A woman pregnant without permission has to surrender her unborn child to government enforcers, no matter what the stage of fetal development.

Late-term abortions are problematic, but the Chinese are nothing if not efficient. On one Web site for Chinese obstetricians and gynecologists, doctors recently traded tips in a dispassionate discussion titled: "What if the infant is still alive after induced labor?" ChinaAid provided a translation of a thread regarding an eight-month-old fetus that survived the procedure.

"Xuexia" wrote: "Actually, you should have punctured the fetus' skull." Another poster, "Damohuyang," wrote that most late-term infants died during induced labor, some lived and "would be left in trash cans. Some of them could still live for one to two days."

To be clear, some of the doctors online expressed concern for the rights of the child. Others, however, worried only about potential legal ramifications. Technically, it is illegal in China to kill a baby, one is relieved to learn, but family-planning imperatives sometimes prevail. According to a 2009 State Department report, monetary incentives and penalties are attached to population targets, creating what amounts to bounties on the unborn.

A district court judge denied a request for an injunction against Abby Johnson, who resigned as director of a Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas abortion facility in Bryan/College Station last month. The judge also denied a similar request directed at the Coalition for Life, the local pro-life organization that started the 40 Days for Life campaign in Bryan/College Station five years ago.

According to news reports, Judge J.D. Langley said Planned Parenthood did not offer convincing reasons "to warrant the extreme remedy of injunctive relief." Planned Parenthood had initiated the court action to block disclosure of confidential information about patients, which is something Johnson said she had never intended to do.

Johnson was very pleased with the court's decision, which opens the door for her to offer more specifics about her work at Planned Parenthood and the reasons she resigned. After watching an abortion procedure on an ultrasound machine, she had a change of heart about abortion and was unable to continue working at the clinic.

Speaking on Peruvian radio, Justice Ernesto Alvarez said, "The State cannot participate in the sale or the free distribution of this pill" because it cannot be "proven that this medicine does not have an abortifacient nature."

Alvarez explained that the court reached the conclusion that the pill's abortifacient potential exists regardless of whether or not it is sold or given away. "The court has not found any basis that could decisively establish that it does not have an abortifacient nature." For this reason, he added, the State cannot participate either in the sale or in the distribution of the morning-after pill and must exclude it as a valid tool for family planning."

Regarding the question of what to do with the previously manufactured pills, Alvarez answered that, "The legal advisors of the Ministry of Health have a variety of possibilities within the framework of the law."

"Major Christian and Jewish denominations and millions of Americans disagree with this position and support a woman’s right to make her own reproductive health decisions. This action by the House is an unacceptable denial of our constitutional right to live according to our own moral beliefs," Joan Lamunyon Sanford, of the New Mexico Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, said in a statement released Monday.

Sanford said it was "appalling" that abortion was singled out for exclusion from the bill–through the efforts of the the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.