March for Women’s Lives

Also called the “Abortion Rights March,” or similar titles, the April 25, 2004 event name was as shown above.  That is significant as participants had varying reasons for being present.  Marching for “women’s’ lives” rather than “abortion rights” should have led to a large outpouring of support. 

Organizers, i.e. NARAL, Planned Parenthood, National Organization for Women (NOW) and others, proclaimed that there would be a crowd of more than one million people for the march.  The National Park Service no longer estimates crowd sizes.  The Washington Park Police estimated 250,000 at the rally, approximately 50,000 more than the 200,000 reported participants in the January 2004 March for Life.  Also, participation was even lower, given the fact that the number of protesters, reported wrongly, included several thousand pro-life advocates present to counter-protest. 

Some media outlets, e.g. New York Times and the Associated Press spoke of “tens of thousands…” being among the no more than 200,000 marchers.  Reuters reported “hundreds of thousands of protesters…” while the United Press claimed 500,000 attended the march.  All reports were of numbers just a fraction of the 1,000,000,000 organizers had predicted.

Pro-life protesters were significantly large in number that police set up barricades to separate marchers on the two sides of the issue.  Dave Andrusko of National Right to Life reported that what many march supporters and sponsors were thinking and said would have registered 10 on a Richter scale for hysteria and vile language.  He quoted columnist Michelle Malkin: “They tried ‘to hide pro-life protest signs by covering them with their profanity-laced placards.’ ” Andrusko also quoted columnist Kathleen Parker’s 4/28 Orlando Sentinel column in which she referred to those whose “protest signs [against President Bush and pro-lifers] were crude to pornographic.”  She also noted “profanity and obscene gesturing toward the pro-life crowd were commonplace.”  Parker did criticize displays of pictures of aborted babies.

New York’s Senator Hillary Clinton spoke at a pre-march breakfast media.  Her remarks reflected the dual march tone of pro-abortion and anti-Bush.  She said Bush’s administration was filled with people “who consider Roe v Wade the worst abomination of constitutional law in history…All the people are here today not only to march on behalf of women’s lives but to take that energy into the election in November.”  Kerry campaign workers handed out literature and campaign paraphernalia.  “Celebrities” in the march were Whoopi Goldberg, Kathleen Turner, Ashley Judd, Cybil Shepherd Susan Sarandon, Allison Janney, Julianne Moore and Ted Turner, founder of CNN and former husband of Jane Fonda.  This was also the last official activity for outgoing NARAL President, Kate Michelman.

The event had sounded formidable as it was advertised.  It seemed likely to drown the positive effects of the January March for Life.  As it played out, it fell far short of its promises.  It was not even front cover news in the Democrat and Chronicle.  Dave Andrusko; “Averting our Eyes at our Peril;” Today’s News and Views; www.nrlc.org.; Steve Ertelt; ”March for Abortion Attracts Lower Numbers than Expected;” www.LifeNews.com.; ; 4/25/04 “Pro-abortion march attracts fraction of expected marchers…;” Catholic News Agency; 4/26/05; Jennifer C. Kerr; “Some 500,000 Rally for Abortion Rights;” The Associated Press; 4/26/04; Kathryn Lopez; “March Focus on Women’s Lives Draws Hundreds of Thousands; www.nationalreview.com .  Also read: CBS News Typifies Media Bias in Abortion March Coverage; http://www.lifenews.com/nat491.html

The young march participants

The Knight-Ridder report of college-age women’s march participation leads to a different perspective in light of Zogby International poll results showing “a majority of young Americans take a pro-life view on abortion.”  60% of 18-29 year-olds took one of three varying pro-life positions.  39% took one of the three pro-abortion stances.  26% of young Americans said abortions should never be legal.

 Holly Smith, director of youth outreach for the National Right to Life Committee said: "Anecdotal evidence and polling over the last several years have demonstrated a clear trend of youth becoming more and more pro-life."  She cited increased requests to join Teens for Life and National College Students for Life, both NRLC youth outreach programs.

Abortion's impact on young Americans is enormous.  Smith said, of U.S. women having abortions:

• 52% are younger than 25;
• 33% of all abortions are done on women aged 20-24;
• 19% are done on teenagers;
• College women have one of every five abortions performed;
• 43% of American women will have at least one abortion by age 45.      

The media said the abortion march showed young women as predominantly pro-abortion.  That contradicts previous stories about young people, especially women, dominating the January, 2004 pro-life march     In the Washington Post's coverage of the annual March for Life in January, 2004, Manny Fernandez reported, "The event was attended by scores of teenagers and college-age students. And were it not for the signs and chants, the young people in varsity letterman jackets, dyed hair, school backpacks and pierced eyebrows would have seemed at home at a Pearl Jam concert."

The Zogby poll confirms that young Americans don't want abortion to be as prevalent as it is today. To the question of whether abortion should not be permitted after the fetal heartbeat begins, 65.5% of 18-29 year-olds agreed, 46.9% strongly so. The human heart begins to beat 18-21 days after fertilization, before most women realize they are pregnant.  When 18-29 year-olds were asked if abortion should not be permitted after fetal brain waves are detected, 73% agreed, 52.8% of those agreed strongly. Brain waves are detectable six weeks after fertilization, before most abortions are performed.  Also, 82.4% of 18-29 year-old respondents disagreed with the use of tax dollars to pay for abortions and 74.5% of 18-29 year-olds favor laws requiring that women who are 20 weeks or further along in their pregnancy be given information about fetal pain before having an abortion.

"The other side is completely befuddled by the 'ingratitude' of our generation for the 'right' to abortion," Smith wrote.  "Yet, young people recognize that harm has been done to each of us as a result of losing 43 million peers. And by seeing family and friends that have suffered following their own abortions, we know that abortion hurts women."

Adapted from Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com  April 27, 2004. & Kathryn Lopez; “March Focus on Women’s Lives Draws Hundreds of Thousands; www.nationalreview.com

---

Bush Pulls USAID Funds for "Reproductive Rights" Conference

On April 26, 2004, a senior government official told the Washington Times USAID will provide no funding of June reproductive rights and global heath "Youth and Health: Generation on the Edge" conference. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) will provide no financial support for the conference. 

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) claims it never agreed to fund     the conference.  HHS was very critical of conference planners for including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), two divisions of the HHS, in their marketing materials.

The conference will feature several pro-abortion groups, i.e. International Planned Parenthood Organization, and the U.N. International Family Planning Fund (UNFPA). Planned Parenthood is well known for its destructive work.  UNFPA participates in coercive abortion in China and its population control agenda.  The official said the conference has moved from being a teaching forum to one expressing partisan political views, e.g. inclusion of the political organization, MoveOn.org. 

In addition, one of the conference days, “Advocacy Day,” is scheduled for conference participants to lobby Senate and House Members’ at their offices. The use of government funding for lobbying activities is inappropriate.

As news of the event, its participants and shift in agenda became known, angry pro-life/pro-family groups and individuals had begun calling to complain about government money being used for such purposes.  By the time that had begun to happen, the decision to pull USAID funding from the conference had already been made.  HHS spokesman Bill Pierce said. "We also have concerns that they used our name and logo in their brochures without our approval or authorization because we had not officially committed funds," he told the Times.  http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040426-011659-1653r.htm

While not likely to have been done specifically by President Bush, the funding cut was the work of his administration.  The policies and practices of the Bush Administration have followed pro-life, pro-family patterns and clearly have provided pro-abortion, anti-family individuals with distress, as seen in their march. 

This cut was initiated far too early to have been a response, as some pro-abortionists claimed, to the march’s heavy anti-Bush tone. 

---

Breast Cancer Risks and Prevention

On April 28, 2004, Angela Lanfranchi, MD, FACS and Joel Brind, PhD spoke at the Academy of Medicine in Rochester, NY.  Dr. Lanfranchi has a private practice in which she exclusively does breast surgery.  She is also a Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, a fellow of the American College of Surgeons, a diplomate of the American Board of Surgery and a member of the Expert Advisory Panel for the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners.  Dr. Brind, a Professor of Human Biology and Endocrinology at Baruch College of New York city, is a graduate of Yale with a Ph.D. awarded by New York University in 1981.  He is a biochemist specializing in reproductive steroid hormones, e.g. estrogen, and their links to human disease. He has an international reputation as a breast cancer researcher and is widely published in medical journals. 

Sadly, the Democrat and Chronicle’s advance coverage almost totally presented the opposition point of view, perhaps discouraging attendance by some.  The D & C article of the event covered little of the content, but called it “bad science” and wrongly wrote of opponents not being allowed to speak.  Following is some of the information the speakers presented.

Their sex, aging and genetic background unavoidably make women breast cancer candidates.  Other factors, e.g.  amount of exposure to estrogen, can be minimized and thus reduce the breast cancer risk.  The more estrogen to which breasts are exposed, the higher the risk of cancer.  Naturally during each monthly menstrual cycle a woman is exposed to increased estrogen levels.  Birth control pills and hormone replacement therapy also increase breast cancer risks by increased exposure to estrogen.  Alcohol consumption can impair the liver’s ability to eliminate (metabolize) estrogen in the body.  Thus regular alcohol consumption increases breast cancer risk in direct proportion to the amount of alcohol consumed.  Also, after menopause, obesity increases breast cancer risk by increasing the level of estrogen. 

In a normal pregnancy estrogen levels rise 2000% by the end of the 1^st trimester.  During the first 2 trimesters, the breast grows because of increased number of immature type 1 and 2 lobules (milk glands).  During the 3^rd trimester, the breasts stop growing but lobules mature into Type 3 and 4 lobules.  When a woman miscarries during the first trimester, the miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) do not increase breast cancer risk since they are associated with low estrogen levels that do not cause breast growth. 

The longer a woman is pregnant before having an induced abortion, the higher will be her risk of breast cancer because the high estrogen levels will have caused breast growth .  When her pregnancy is terminated before the breast cells reach full maturity, she is left with more immature type 1 and 2 breast lobules than before her pregnancy began and, therefore, is at increased risk.  Her breasts never mature to type 3 and 4 lobules, which would have occurred in the 3^rd trimester and lowered her risk.  This risk is especially high for teenagers who have an abortion in the late 1^st or 2^nd trimester and for those women who have never had a child since, in both cases, their breasts never mature.  Premature deliveries before 32 weeks are also known to double breast cancer risks. 

Strategies for lowering the breast cancer risk were described.  They included (1)  reduction of exposure to estrogen, including avoidance of hormonal therapies, birth control pills and injectable or implantable hormones; (2) exercise; (3) maintenance of normal body weight; (4) having children earlier inn life; (5) avoiding induced abortions.  Warning was given that for women who have an abortion, taking hormonal birth control will increase the risk factor.  Reduction of the risk occurs in having children and breast feeding them.  Dietary strategies promoted were (1) eating cruciferous vegetables, i.e. broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower, watercress, kale and cabbage; (2) eating Omega-3 fatty acids, i.e. as found in fish and many vegetable oils; (3) eating soy products; (4) limiting alcoholic beverages to occasional rather than regular.

Lanfranchi and Brind discussed their studies and the criticisms they have received, including some noted in the D & C.

They distributed their booklet, Breast Cancer Risks and Prevention, as well as numerous articles in which they defend their work and challenge some of the criticism leveled by their critics. 

A round of applause for sponsoring this presentation goes to Feminists for Life of New York and program support by a grant from the Leo Holmsten Human Life Committee, Inc. 

The link being denied

For many years the tobacco industry denied any link between smoking and lung cancer.  As that link was more publicized and more smokers lost their lives, the denials stopped.  Tobacco companies have paid huge settlements.

Some in the medical profession deny the abortion-breast cancer link.  The criticisms of the research showing

the link are often picayune, but will likely soon change. 

A New Jersey abortionist and women’s center will pay a substantial settlement for not informing “Sarah” of the mental and breast-cancer risks of abortion. 

The tobacco and abortion industry parallels are beginning to show.   National Catholic Register; Vol. 79; #46; 11/29/03  Mwith article = more information available at website www.righttoliferoch.org or call RARTL office

Partial-birth abortion ban court proceedings

President Bush, on November 5, 2003, signed legislation outlawing partial-birth abortions.  Immediately the Center for Reproductive Rights, National Abortion Federation, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and some abortionists filed 3 lawsuits.  They claim the ban is unconstitutional because it lacks a “health exception.”

The case went before three federal judges in 3 separate courts, i.e. San Francisco, Lincoln, NE, and New York.  The San Francisco hearings have been completed and trials in Nebraska and New York are continuing.

Sadly, this is likely all news to you.  Neither the Democrat and Chronicle nor other media outlets covered the trials.  In addition to our website, www.righttoliferoch.org information on the trials is at www.usdoj.gov (US Dept. of Justice); www.nrlc.org; www.LifeNews.com; and www.nysrighttolife.org

On 4/5/05, the following testimony was given by a doctor, a woman, in Southern District Court of NY:

 She admitted to the judge that she does not base her opinions on medical literature because there are no comparative studies of the two types of D&E abortions, i.e. “intact” as the partial-birth abortion which does not require cutting the child into pieces and “dismemberment” which does require the cutting.  The judge questioned her: 

Q: “When you tell them (mothers) about the procedure, do you tell them what you are going to do?
A: I do.
Q: Do you use simple English words so that they know what they are doing and authorizing?
A: I do.
Q: In a dismemberment D&E procedure, do you tell them you will tear the limbs off, or do you say “disarticulate?”
A: I tell them that we will try to get it intact, but it may come out in parts.  
Q: Do you discuss the killing of the fetus?
A: I tell them that when I cut the umbilical cord of the fetus, the fetus exsanguinates.
Q:“Exsanguin” what?
A: In layman’s terms, it would be drained of blood.
Q: Do you tell them that?
A: No.
Q: Do you tell them whether the fetus feels any pain?
A: The fetus may have a heartbeat but I do not think it is alive.
Q: Do you ever tell them it will hurt?
A: It does not hurt her.
Q: No, not the mother, that it will hurt the fetus?
A: The intent of the abortion is that the fetus will be terminated.
Q: Do you ever tell them that if you use an intact D&E method you will use scissors and insert them in the base of the skull?
A: I have not told them that.
Q: And do you tell them that afterwards you suck the brains out?
A: I use my finger to disrupt the central nervous system and collapse the skull. {her procedural variation}
Q: Do you ever tell the mother the fetus will feel pain?
A: I have never talked to a fetus.
Q: I did not ask you that.  Do you ever tell the mother?”

Then the doctor became angry, raised her voice and said: “That is what I tell my patients.  I’m sorry....I do not believe the fetus feels pain, so I do not tell them that.”  The judge then asked her if she had ever read any studies on fetal pain.  She responded that she had not.

In the New York trial, American Center for Law & Justice Chief Counsel, Jay Sekulow, supported the Department of Justice.  He filed regular reports of court-room testimony, including above, in a Trial Note-book available at:

http://www.aclj.org/resources/prolife/ pba/0403333329 trial notebook.asp

Decisions are expected in late summer. No doubt, whatever decisions the three federal courts make, the partial-birth abortion ban will be later heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The timing and court membership then is unpredictable.  Now, media reports say the court split is 5 pro-abortion 4 pro-life.  In fact, the split is 6-3; only Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas have been consistently pro-life in their decisions.

 

---

Justice Ginsburg asked to recuse herself

On 3/18/04, a dozen pro-life Congressmen wrote to Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg asking her to recuse herself from future abortion cases because of her relationship with the National Organization of Women (NOW)

Ginsburg has lent her name to the NOW Legal Defense Fund which often filed briefs in Supreme Court cases, including abortion cases.  NOW cosponsors the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Distinguished Lecture Series.

The New York Times has asked that she cut her ties with NOW.  The letter from the Congressmen said: “As legislators, we believe your actions call into question your ability to rule with impartiality on any case involving abortion.” Steven Ertelt; LifeNews.com 3/19/04

 

---

Roe v Wade nearly overturned in 1992

In June, 1992, the decision in Planned Parenthood v Casey had been, 5-4, decided in favor of the challenged Pennsylvania restrictions and also to overrule Roe v Wade.

Justice Blackmun, the leader of the minority side, received a note from Justice Kennedy asking for a meeting about a “new development.”  Justice Kennedy, for unknown reasons, changed his vote  Our Sunday Visitor; 3/21/04

---

Nutrition/hydration for ill/aged

Pope John Paul II address to health care providers

Roman Catholic Pope John Paul II spoke to the International Congress sponsored by World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations and the Pontifical Academy of Life.  His address, entitled “Life sustaining treatments and the vegetative state,” clearly stated removing the feeding tube of a disabled patient is immoral and amounts to “euthanasia by omission.”  He also rejected language used to describe disabled persons as “vegetables,” calling such terms “degrading.”

Since withdrawal of water and food can cause death by starvation/dehydration, their withdrawals cannot be ethically justified.

Considerations about the “quality of life” often dictated by “psychological, social and economic pressures” were rejected by the Pope. 

He acknowledged pressures placed on families to withdraw hydration and nutrition.  He called for support of those families.  He gave examples of programs and facilities which help the patients and families and encouraged medical staff and family teaming.

The Pope’s remarks are considered an “allocution” i.e. papal opinion not viewed as infallible.  “L’Osservatore Romano” (English edition) 31 March 2004

Responses to the allocution M

The implications and practical effects of the Pope’s remarks will take some time to be resolved.  Currently, many hospitals are continuing to follow the “Ethical and Religious Directive for Catholic Health Care Services,” aka ERDs.  These guidelines state that feeding tubes for patients in chronically vegetative states are “medical treatment” that can be continued or stopped, based on the benefits and burdens for patient and family. 

ERDs require that the patient’s desire for no prolonged medical treatments must be communicated in advance. In NY state, that would mean specifying in a person’s Health Care Proxy what treatments he/she would forego and informing his/her health care agent, identified in the person’s Health Care Proxy document, preferences to be communicated when he/she can no longer make personal medical decisions.

The Pope specified nutrition, hydration, cleanliness and warmth as “ordinary care.”  In America, it has become increasingly common to consider nutrition and hydration to be “extraordinary care” for some patients, usually those in very weakened physical conditions.  Using the term, “quality of life,” the medical profession places the care decision on a judgment some would dare not make about another human being. 

“US Catholic Leaders Refuse Explicit Papal Directive on Nutrition and Hydration;
Will ‘Study’Life and Death Issue for a Year”

By May 1^st, headlines like the above were appearing.  There is a division among Catholic ethicists between the  teaching of the Church and modern bioethics. Father John Paris, bioethics professor at Boston College, bluntly stated  defiance, e.g. "I think the best thing to do is ignore it, and it will go away," Paris added,  "It's not an authoritative teaching statement."

Father John Strynkowski, Executive Director of the Secretariat for Doctrine and Pastoral Practices, said that the USCCB office will "study" the pope's statement, but anticipated no changes in Catholic hospitals until completion of the study.  "What's involved is a process of study and reflection, looking at the pope's statement in the light of previous statements," Strynkowski said. "Theologians will have to study that whole chain of documents." The process, he said, may take a year. LifeSiteNews.com; May 3, 2004; St.Petersburg TimesOnline:http://www.sptimes.com/2004/05/01/ tampabay/At_pope_s_word__new_S.shtml

 

---

For your information...

Caring Times from Genesee Region Home Care printed the following by medical ethicist, Paul Drager:

1.Appoint a health care agent, in writing, by choosing someone who understand and shares your value system as it applies to life-sustaining medical treatment;

2.Be sure your agent understands what treatments you do or do not want in various situations – and that he/she agrees to advocate for what you wish,

3.Be sure others, including your doctor, know what your wishes are so that they can assure that they are honored.

NY State’s Department of Health has information, including Frequently Asked Questions about health care decision making on its website:www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/hospital/healthcareproxy/faq.htm   Mwith article = more information available at website www.righttoliferoch.org or call RARTL office

---

Prospective presidential candidate and Roman Catholic John Kerry

Mr. Kerry claims to be a practicing Catholic.  The news has been full of descriptions or where he was given Communion and where it would be refused and replaced by a prayer for him.  His Catholicism has been questioned in light of his first marriage ending in divorce and his second marriage well established before he sought an annulment, which he has never claimed to have received.   

Further questions have come from his support of abortion legislation in the Senate and his public statements about being pro-abortion.  All of this puts him at odds with the church in which he claims membership.  What might we conclude about Mr. Kerry from all of this? 

His observable behavior and statements about his being a Catholic and a member, in good standing, of the Roman Catholic church conflict with expectations of a  “practicing Catholic.  However, his behavior and statements do not give lay members of the church the right to consider him excommunicated.  His status with the church is a matter between himself and the church authorities.

Even though the behavior of an individual can be observed, it is not another person’s right to judge anyone’s  religious affiliation claim nor the state of his soul.  That will be a matter for him/her and his/her Creator. 

However, there is a highly relevant question to be asked, i.e. why does someone who claims membership in a particular church appear to publicly flaunt its rules and practices, apparently with no concern?  Inability or unwillingness to follow and/or support stated laws and practices of a club, business, school, city/state/country may prove a detriment to functioning well in the position of Leader, Chairperson, President of the group should a person at odds with the laws and practices become the leader, whether by appointment or election.

 Teresa Heinz-Kerry

People Magazine’s 5/10/04 issue had a story which was previewed at www.NewsMax.com.  In the article, the prospective First Lady revealed that after becoming pregnant at age 45, she decided to have an abortion.  The magazine reported that Mrs. Kerry said that when she learned she was carrying a fetus who would be born severely deformed she would end the pregnancy, she scheduled an abortion appointment.  She miscarried before the abortion. 

While acknowledging abortion “ends the process of life,” and calling abortion a “terrible thing to do,” she says the experience confirmed her support of abortion rights. 

Of her religion, Heinz-Kerry said” I may be a good Catholic, a bad Catholic or a so-so Catholic.  But that’s who I am.”  She and her husband are often seen together attending and participating in Catholic Masses.

---

Boycott information

Life Decisions International publishes The Boycott List as part of its Corporate Funding Project.  Boycotting of businesses/corporations is done in response to their donating to Planned Parenthood.  The corporations/businesses are identified on The Boycott List, available at Life Decisions International, P. O. Box 65161; Washington,  DC 20013-0161; (540) 631-0380; www.fightpp.org. 

Boycotting involves not buying boycotted companies’ products/services and communicating to them about your displeasure that they provide financial support to Planned Parenthood.  You might want to communicate to:

L Ben & Jerry’s- Operations: ice cream and ice cream shops; - Mr. Yves Couette, President & CEO, Ben & Jerry’s Homemade, Inc., 30 Community Dr., South Burlington, VT 05403; (: 802-846-1500; < benjerry.com

L Newman’s Own- Operations: food products; - Mr. Paul L. Newman, President, Newman’s Own Inc. 246 Post Rd. E., Westport, CT 06880; (: (203) 222-0136;  <: newmansown.com.

Support of Planned Parenthood is so vast that this may seem to be insignificant activity.  However, business es do get dropped from the list as they stop the PP support.  Dropped in November, 2003, were Sony and HMV.

You are urged to contact Life Decisions International to be part of this effective activity.

 

---

Abortion: stronger emotional impact on women than miscarriage

Norwegian researchers have found “abortion has a more significant damaging emotional impact on women than miscarriage.”  Suppression of thoughts and feelings about the death of the baby were found more among women who had aborted than those who had miscarried.  The study revealed that about 17% of 80 post-abortive women surveyed had high scores on a scale measuring "avoidance" symptoms, i.e. avoidance of what happened or "intrusion," i.e. flashbacks or bad dreams. Women who had abortions were more likely to have regret and feelings of "guilt and shame," the study authors said. Three percent of women who had miscarriages had such symptoms.

Georgette Forney, an abortion survivor and co-founder of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, applauded that more research is being done about abortion's aftereffects. "My experience is that women who miscarry are usually given a small window of sympathy, but women who have abortions often resort to using drugs and alcohol to cover up the pain because the people who told us it was ok to abort our babies, don't want to listen to our crying afterwards," Forney explained. http://www.lifenews.com/nat495.html

---

Suggested Prayers

---

LIFE-LINES available electronically

As e-mail continues to grow, many have begun to prefer it to U.S. postal mail.  We can send LIFE-LINES to you by e-mail if you’d like.  To change to e-mail, please call Grace at the RARTL office or send her an e-mail.  Please include your name, street address, phone number and e-mail address.

 

---

RARTL’s web site

Go to www.righttoliferoch.org for an enormous amount of issue information.  The paper edition of Life-Lines has space limitations that keep is coverage short.  The symbol  has been placed next to some articles.  For these, a supplement has been prepared for those who do not have a computer or do not wish to use it to read additional information on the article.  If you would like the supplementary information, please call Grace at the office (585) 621-4690.  She will be happy to mail it to you.

---

Using your credit card rather than a check 

Many people find it easier to keep track of expenditures by putting almost everything on a credit card.  Soon you will be able to use your Visa or Mastercard for your purchases and your tax-deductible donations to the RARTL Education Fund. 

We don’t know how many people prefer using a credit card.  Quite soon, RARTL will be set up to be able to accept credit card usage.

So the next time you are considering an education donation, you will be able to use your Visa or Mastercard if you wish. Call for details. 

---