His statement follows:

“We have tried negotiation with the Administration and legislation with the Congress — and we’ll keep at it — but there’s still no fix. Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now. Though the Conference is not a party to the lawsuits, we applaud this courageous action by so many individual dioceses, charities, hospitals and schools across the nation, in coordination with the law firm of Jones Day. It is also a compelling display of the unity of the Church in defense of religious liberty. It’s also a great show of the diversity of the Church’s ministries that serve the common good and that are jeopardized by the mandate — ministries to the poor, the sick, and the uneducated, to people of any faith or no faith at all.”

Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, also applauded the additional 12 lawsuits filed around the country in protest of the Health and Human Services mandate forcing employers to provide coverage for activities they find objectionable.

The lawsuits represent 43 plaintiffs, including the Archdioceses of New York, Washington, D.C. and St. Louis, the Michigan Catholic Conference, and several dioceses.

“These new actions mean there are now 23 lawsuits filed against this assault on religious freedom,” said Father Pavone, whose organization was the fourth to file suit against the mandate. “Since Priests for Life launched its lawsuit in February, we have urged other organizations and dioceses to do the same. When there are multiple federal lawsuits on the same issue in different parts of the country, this can create the potential kind of conflict that the Supreme Court may be more likely to resolve.”

Besides suing Kathleen Sebelius and the HHS, Father Pavone and Priests for Life are helping organize rallies nationwide to stand up for religious freedom on Friday, June 8. The Priests for Life team is organizing the rally in New York City.

“The fact that the New York Archdiocese is now part of the legal assault on this mandate will, I am sure, create renewed interest and participation in our June 8 rally. We invite all to take part.”

Editor’s note: The remarks by Joe Biden originally recorded at usembassy.gov have been edited to remove Biden’s comments about the one child policy.

the press never questioned Obama over his support for allowing doctors to kill live babies that survived abortion procedures. Obama’s history with abortion is not pleasant. As a senator in Illinois he argued for a law that would allow survivors of abortion to die without medical treatment.

Obama quoted the Bible and leaned on his supposedly “Christian” faith to support raising taxes on some Americans to give it to others which is theft. At least he didn’t even attempt to use his “phony theology” to try to support the idea of killing babies outside the womb.

From ‘What you need to know about the `Born Alive’ controversy and Barack Obama‘ in a August 20, 2004 article at the Chicago Tribune:

Here’s some of what Obama said on April 4, 2002 during floor debate in the Illinois Senate:

The source of the objections of the (Illinois State) Medical Society (was that this proposal) puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact his is a non-viable fetus; that if that fetus, or child—however way you want to describe it—is now outside the mothers’ womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s non viable but there’s,  let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, (the fetus is) not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved….. The only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor – the attending physician – who has made an assessment that this is a non-viable fetus and that, let’s say for the purposes of the mother’s health, …that labor is being induced, that that physician a) is going to make the wrong assessment and b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a non-viable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physician or his own accord or her own accord would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child. Now if—if you think that there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense. But I suspect –and my impression is that the Medical Society suspects as well –that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making those determination and that ,essentially adding an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physicians to induce labor and perform an abortions. Now if that’s the case… I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.

Pro life activist Jill Stanek noted then senator Obama’s 10 reasons for supporting infanticide in an article on WorldNetDaily.com in January of 2008. Among the reasons was #10:

“10. Babies who survive abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

Obama, the sole opponent ever to speak against BAIPA, stated on the Illinois Senate floor on March 30, 2001:

I just want to suggest … that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. …

I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.”

More recently Obama has raised the ire of Catholic groups. Cliff Kincaid wrote in a previous article about Obamacare rules violating religious conscience:

The administration claims there is a religious exemption in the mandate, but the bishops say it is so narrow that it fails to cover the vast majority of faith-based organizations, including Catholic hospitals, universities and service organizations that help millions every year. “Ironically,” they say, “not even Jesus & his disciples would have qualified.”

 

The bishops go on, “Now that the Administration has refused to recognize the Constitutional conscience rights of organizations and individuals who oppose the mandate, the bishops are now urging Catholics and others of good will to fight this unprecedented attack on conscience rights and religious liberty.”

 

Interestingly, The Washington Post, as Father Swink indicated, agrees with the bishops. The paper said, “In this circumstance, requiring a religiously affiliated employer to spend its own money in a way that violates its religious principles does not make an adequate accommodation for those deeply held views. Having recognized the principle of a religious exemption, the administration should have expanded it.”

 

So why would the administration pick a major fight with the Catholic Church? There are two main reasons. (1) The administration wants to please its progressive and feminist, secular pro-abortion base. (2) The administration believes Catholics are divided on the issue and will ignore their leaders and follow Obama.

The Obama administration also put its abortion advocacy above sex trafficking victims. Lifesite News reported:

For over a decade, we have achieved an amazing left-right, religious-secular, bicameral, bipartisan consensus, unified in combating sex and labor trafficking at home and worldwide without promoting abortion.

Until today.

In what can only be described as an unconscionable abuse of power, the Obama Administration has engaged in what amounts to bid rigging; denying taxpayer funds to a demonstrably superior organization—the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)—with an exemplary ten year track record of performance that scored significantly higher in independent HHS reviews than two of the three NGOs that got the grant.

The Obama Administration’s discriminatory practice of funding NGOs that provide or refer for abortions even when they fail to win a competitive process is not only unjust, unethical and in violation of conscience laws (Weldon Amendment and Coats-Snowe), but it severely undermines public—and Congressional—confidence and support for what is an otherwise laudable program.

If you are a Catholic, or other faith-based NGO, or a secular organization of conscience, there is now clear proof that your grant application will not be considered under a fair, impartial, and transparent process by the Obama Administration.

The Obama Administration’s bias against Catholics is an affront to religious freedom and a threat to all people of faith.

The Democrat National Committee even went so far as to send a veiled threat to TV stations to keep anti-Obama graphic abortion ads from running.

The gruesome abortions by abortionist Kermit B. Gosnell highlight the real world results of what Obama was defending. From a story about Gosnell by Cliff Kincaid:

The D.A. says the doctor killed seven babies after they were delivered alive.”

The report by correspondent Elaine Quijano on the “house of horrors,” which had been operating for 30 years, included these revelations:

• Children were born and then killed by putting scissors in the back of their neck and snipping their spinal cord.
• One woman, 41-year-old Carnamaya Mongar, died in 2009 after receiving an overdose of anesthesia.
• Photos from inside the clinic show unsanitary, squalid conditions with jars and bags of aborted fetuses.
• Fetal remains were found in a refrigerator that the employees used to store their lunches.
• The abortionist, Kermit B. Gosnell, has been named in 46 lawsuits, but his clinic had not been inspected by state officials since 1993.
• None of the employees had any medical training. A high school student was employed as an anesthesiologist.
• The doctor used unsterilized instruments, infecting patients with venereal disease and often punctured uteruses and intestines.

By Michael Whipple, Editor usACTIONnews.com

Follow Michael Whipple on Twitter

Follow usACTIONnews on Twitter or on Facebook

Wisconsin Right to Life PAC (WRTL/PAC) unveiled its state-of-the-art recall election website, Wisconsin Right to Life Election Center. The website includes comprehensive information about all of the candidates running for Governor, Lt. Governor and the four State Senate races in contention on June 5.

“Our election website is truly THE place for right-to-life voters to come to find out where the candidates stand on issues affecting the sanctity of human life and which candidates the Wisconsin Right to Life PAC has endorsed in these very important elections,” said Susan Armacost, WRTL/PAC Director. “While collective bargaining and public employee benefits may have ignited the flurry of recall elections in our state, the fact is that each of the targeted public officials are strong right-to-life supporters and their opponents are pro-abortion to the core. The stakes for unborn children in these recall elections are extremely high. The Wisconsin Right to Life Election Center will be very helpful to the tens of thousands of right-to-life supporters who will head to the polls on June 5.”

The WRTL/PAC has endorsed Governor Scott Walker who leads by six, Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleefisch, Senators Scott Fitzgerald, Van Wanggaard and Terry Moulton and Representative Jerry Petrowski.

The website includes dramatic videos exposing the deplorable record of Tom Barrett on issues affecting the sanctity of human life. “While in the state legislature and in Congress, Barrett had one of the worst right-to-life voting records we have ever seen,” said Armacost. “These videos will be a real eye-opener to voters in Wisconsin when they are presented with the facts about Tom Barrett’s blatant disregard for human life.”

The Wisconsin Right to Life Election Center can be accessed by clicking here.

The United States should immediately grant asylum to Chen Guangcheng and his family, along with the activist who rescued him, He Peirong. Chen and his wife have both stated that they are in danger.

U.S. officials contend that Chen left the U.S. Embassy yesterday of his own volition to seek medical treatment at a hospital. From the hospital, however, Chen told friends and the media that he was not given full information on which to base his decision. He told Associated Press, moreover, that a U.S. official relayed a threat that if Chen did not leave the Embassy, he wife would be beaten to death. He told CNN, “I am very disappointed at the U.S. government.”

Chen also told CNN that after he escaped, his wife was tied to a chair in their home for two days. Guards carried sticks into their home and threatened to beat her to death. They also moved into their house, eating at their table and using their belongings. They have installed seven surveillance cameras inside their home. These facts convinced Chen that it would not be safe for him or his family to remain in China. He did not learn these facts until he was reunited with his wife in the hospital.

Chen then told CNN, “I would like to say to (President Obama): Please do everything you can to get our whole family out.” He told the Daily Beast, “My fervent hope is that it would be possible for me and my family to leave for the U.S. on Hillary Clinton’s plane.”

After Chen’s miraculous, “mission impossible” escape and the risks he and others took to deliver him safely to the U.S. Embassy, why did the U.S. officials press him to leave and hand this noble man back into the hands of those who have been so fiercely persecuting him and his family?

If so, then this action is beyond shameful. Not only have we let Chen down, but we have betrayed those in China that we should most want to support: those who share our values.

Many have regarded the U.S. Embassy as the lone island of freedom and justice in a land filled with repression and injustice. Given their trust, how could the U.S. hand over a deserving citizen who had fled there for protection?

Chen is hugely symbolic in China, widely loved and admired. By challenging the One Child Policy, he is challenging the lynchpin of social control in China. This explains why Chen is not just an ordinary dissident, but rather symbolizes the heart and conscience of the nation. It also explains the ferocity of the Chinese Communist Party’s reaction to him.

When Chen Guangcheng fled to the U.S. Embassy, the U.S. had a golden opportunity to do the right thing — give him and his family asylum and bring them to safety in the U.S. This would have erased a generation of anti-American propaganda and inspired gratitude, admiration and trust among the Chinese people. Instead the U.S. quickly dispatched Chen out the door, shattering our moral credibility before the world and losing the hearts and minds of a generation of Chinese people who share our values. How “strategic” is this?

The only way to redeem the situation is as clear as it is urgent: give asylum to Chen and his family — and to He Peirong as well. Bring them to safety in the United States, whatever it takes, on Hillary Clinton’s plane.

About 8 pm Beijing time, Zeng Jinyan, wife of Chen’s best friend Hu Jia, posted a tweet which indicates that the media failed to report the correct information about Chen Guangcheng’s updates. Chen did not leave the U.S. Embassy of his own accord. Some sources inside China said the U.S. and Chinese governments have reached some kind of “shameful” agreement regarding Chen. Later Zen Jinyan said on Twitter: Guangcheng called me and told me that he didn’t say, according to media, “I want to kiss you” to Secretary Clinton. What he actually said was “I want to see you.”

Here is additional information from Zeng Jinyan’s twitter:

“He said from this past Friday he couldn’t make any more phone calls (contact the outside), nor could he contact any friends. He wanted to contact Congressman Chris Smith but there was no way he could reach Smith. He said he and his family were willing to leave China.”

“Yuan Weijing (Chen’s wife) said that around noon (12:00 pm Beijing time) she met Chen Guangcheng somewhere outside the U.S. Embassy. The Shandong-Linyi local authorities have now set up cameras in Chen’s house and even have guards with sticks staying in their house. If Guangcheng hadn’t agreed to leave the U.S. Embassy, his wife and children would be sent back to their home in Shandong province, Linyi city immediately.”

“Guangcheng said the Shandong officials are waiting for Yuan Weijing and their children in Beijing.”

“Guangcheng said: ‘Sister Jinyan, you’ve got to help me. Yuan Weijing (Chen’s wife) called me and said she and our children wanted to see me. However, when I arrived in hospital I didn’t see them. They (my family) asked for a private meeting with me and I wanted to see them, but somehow we didn’t get to see each other.’ After consideration this is only what I can tell to the outside. Please help Chen’s family.”

“Guangcheng didn’t want to leave the U.S. Embassy, but he had no choice. If he hadn’t left, Yuan Weijing would have been sent back to Shandong immediately. Yuan Weijing told me: ‘Jinyan, I am so scared…’”

Screen shot of the original tweets by Zeng Jinyan:

Chen Guangcheng had taken refuge in the U.S. Embassy in China but has now gone as Hillary heads to China.  The state department has put out a bizarre explanation of his leaving the embassy just days before Hillary Clinton’s arrival.

Clinton and Treasury Secretary Geithner are meeting with senior Chinese officials on strategic and economic issues.  It is not much of a stretch to think that China threatened economic action that could hurt Obama’s reelection chances if the U.S. didn’t boot the activist out of the embassy. China is the largest foreign holder of America’s debt and could easily influence our economy by dumping bonds or just announcing that it would. We have become their debt slaves. The Obama administration will not take any chances before the election. Remember the off mic comment of Obama to the Russians to just “wait until after the election” so he would have “more flexibility.”

Update:

The following open letter is submitted by Reggie Littlejohn, President, Women’s Rights Without Frontiers:

Dear President Obama, Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Locke,

We call for official United States protection of blind activist Chen Guangcheng, who dramatically escaped house detention and is now said to be at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. As of the writing of this letter, U.S. officials have not promised diplomatic protection for Chen or his family.

As Secretary Clinton travels to Beijing, the moral credibility of the United States on the world stage hangs in the balance. Chen Guangcheng is the Gandhi of our time. He is a man of inconceivable bravery. Poor, blind, beaten and detained, he nevertheless possesses the surpassing backbone to stand alone against the crushing brutality of the communist regime. He is the “Tank Man” against the One Child Policy. He has done this on behalf of the women of China, who for thirty-two years have suffered the unspeakable torture of forced abortion and involuntary sterilization at the hands of the barbarous Chinese population control machine. Chen Guangcheng is a warrior for women’s rights.

At great risk to himself, his family and a wide network of brave supporters, Chen has been delivered safely into our Embassy. Meanwhile, members of his family and key supporters have been beaten or detained.

The entire world is watching. Will you offer official protection to Chen, his family, and his key supporters who are now detained? Or will you continue to kowtow to the Chinese Communist Party for our economic advantage? Inescapably, the choice you make will symbolize the character of our nation to the world.

Women’s Rights Without Frontiers calls upon you to use all diplomatic means to ensure safety for Chen Guangcheng, his family, and his key supporters who are currently detained, especially He Peirong, who rescued Chen and is a hero in her own right.

We also ask that you press for Chen’s requests that those who have been torturing and persecuting his family be brought to justice, and that corrupt officials who have received money for persecuting Chen be investigated and punished.

The American people — and the people of the world — cry out for freedom for Chen Guangcheng. If you deliver him back into the hands of the Chinese Communist Party, he will no doubt be imprisoned, tortured, possibly killed. Would you use this noble man as a bargaining chip in trade talks? To do so would be to sell the soul of our nation.

- Reggie Littlejohn

Chen Guangcheng’s “bold and courageous” appeal to China’s Premier Wen Jiabao to investigate and hold responsible all corrupt officials who systematically beat and tortured him, his family and friends is a “reasonable demand that the Chinese government, supported by the international community, especially the U.S., must meet” said Rep. Chris Smith (NJ-04), chairman of the Foreign Affairs human rights committee of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“This is a test of Premier Wen’s commitment to fundamental human rights, the rule of law, and common decency,” said Smith who recently convened a hearing in Washington, D.C. to spotlight the growing concern for Chen’s safety and that of his family.

The real war against women is forced abortion and gendercide in China.

Aborted baby girl

As the U.S. debates Obamacare and the contraceptive mandate, Chinese women are being dragged out of their homes, strapped down to tables and forced to abort babies that they want, up to the ninth month of pregnancy. Sometimes the women themselves die, along with their full term babies. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, no one supports forced abortion, because it’s not a choice. Watch this 4-minute video to learn the brutal truth about forced abortion in China.
www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/?nav=stop-forced-abortion

Equally appalling, baby girls are being selected for termination. According to one UN estimate, up to 200 million women are missing in the world today due to gendercide, the sex-selective abortion of baby girls, mostly in China and India. Anyone who cares about women’s rights must be heartbroken and incensed by this massive attack against females.

China’s One Child Policy causes more violence against women and girls than any other official policy on earth. It is systematic, institutionalized violence against women:

• Forced abortion is violent. It is official government rape.
• Forced sterilization is often done without anesthesia and may cause infection, which can ruin a woman’s reproductive and general health.
• Infanticide — the killing of newborns — is a human rights atrocity. Read “Best Practices — Infanticide” here.
• Because of gendercide, there are now approximately 37 million more males living in China than women.
• This gender imbalance is driving sexual slavery not only within China, but from the surrounding countries as well.
• China has the highest female suicide rate of any nation in the world. An estimated 500 women a day end their lives in China.

The women of China cannot fight this war, or they risk being imprisoned, tortured and denied medical treatment, like blind forced abortion opponent, Chen Guangcheng.

Martin Luther King said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Stand with our sisters in China. Sign a petition to end forced abortion in China.
www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/index.php?nav=sign_our_petition

Help free Chen Guangcheng.
www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/index.php?nav=chen-guangcheng

By Martin Gould at Newsmax.com

EXCERPTS:

“The bishops are seeing – rightly – a pattern of emerging of hostility towards the Catholic faith for upholding protection of the life of the unborn and because of its position on contraception,” said Hudson.

And Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League pointed out to Newsmax that the protests will come around the time the Supreme Court issues its judgment on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Unless the justices throw the act out completely, the protests could not be timed better, he said.

Donohue said the mandate to make insurance companies cover not only contraceptives but abortion-inducing drugs is the key, he said. “It was done on purpose as a wedge to open the door. If we don’t fight it the next step is to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortion facilities,” he said.

“The idea that I as a Catholic should have to pay for some woman’s abortion makes me want to reach for the vomit bag.”

FULL ARTICLE