The amendment in question, proposed by Democratic Rep. Brad Ellsworth this week, purports to remove “federal funding for abortion” in H.R. 3962 by hiring contractors to issue checks for abortion - essentially putting one more procedural step between abortion and those who pay for them through the government plan.

The USCCB memo told congressional staff Thursday that U.S. bishops did not consider the amendment sufficient - that it does not, in fact, address any of the pro-life concerns in the health bill.

“On examination, it is not a meaningful compromise. It addresses none of the substantial criticisms offered by the Catholic bishops’ conference and other pro-life advocates for health care reform,” wrote Richard Doerflinger, secretariat of Pro-Life Activities at the USCCB, in the memo.

In a column discussing the U.S. bishops’ attitude towards the health bill, Denver auxiliary bishop James Conley noted that the U.S. bishops’ have diligently worked to establish true pro-life language to the bill; but, “as of November 5, all those efforts have failed.” “‘Common ground’ thinking in Washington apparently has more reality as public relations than as public policy,” wrote Conley.

The response by the USCCB may have a significant impact on pro-life lawmakers’ resolve to block the abortion-expanding bill: Bloomberg reports that, according to Ellsworth, several pro-life representatives were waiting to hear the bishops’ assessment before making up their mind about the language.

According to Rules Committee chairwoman Rep. Louise Slaughter, the “rule” or parameters for voting on the House bill will allow a vote on the Ellsworth amendment - but will not allow a vote on the Stupak/Pitts amendment, which would secure long-standing federal policy against abortion funding. A vote on the rule is expected Friday evening.

“[The Ellsworth amendment] serves no purpose except to assist Speaker Pelosi in peeling votes away from an amendment that would flatly prohibit the public plan from paying for elective abortions,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.

Johnson called the Ellsworth Amendment “a political fig leaf made out of cellophane.”

“It directs the federal Secretary of Health to hire a contractor to deliver to abortion providers the payments for elective abortions, payments that are explicitly authorized by the bill [on page 110],” he said. “This is a money-laundering scheme — a federally funded ‘bag man’ will deliver government funds to abortionists. This is federal funding of elective abortion.”

Pro-life Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) called Ellsworth’s proposal equivalent to the government “taking out a contract on the unborn.”

Shortly before Ellsworth introduced his amendment, Smith had warned thousands of pro-lifers tuned into a Stop the Abortion Mandate webcast Monday to be on guard against phony compromises designed to strip support away from the critical Stupak/Pitts amendment.

(Click here for contact information for elected officials)

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Pro-Life Lawmakers Condemn ‘Sham’ Health Bill Abortion Compromise

11,000 on Abortion Mandate Webcast Warned against Phony Compromises in Healthcare Bill

On his blog Boehner states that this premium “will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account - and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.”

He continues: “Section 213 [of the bill] describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run plan.  The Commissioner must charge at a minimum 1$ per enrollee per month.”

His statement immediately gathered attention among those favoring the health care bill, who denied that Boehner’s post accurately portrayed the situation.

According to Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee, however, “Boehner’s post is perfectly accurate.”

Johnson told David Brody of CBN News that “we call it the ‘abortion surcharge.’  It is just one more thing illustrating what we’ve been saying: The bill explicitly authorizes the big new federal government health insurance plan, the public option, to pay for all elective abortions.”

Nevertheless, Johnson continued by saying that “even if the Democratic leadership struck out the ‘abortion surcharge,’ the same fundamental problem would remain:  The ‘public option’ is a federal agency program, and when it pays for elective abortions, that is federal funding of abortion on demand — no matter what convoluted cloaking devices the pro-abortion politicians invent to try to conceal what they are doing.”

According to Boehner, such funding of abortion makes “Speaker Pelosi’s 2,032-page health care monstrosity” an affront “to the American people.”

In addition to speaking about the abortion premium, Boehner also states that the Health and Human Services Secretary “is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan.”

The current Health and Human Services Secretary is Kathleen Sebelius, a pro-abortion “Catholic” who vetoed several pro-life bills during her time as Governor of Kansas.  She is infamous for having invited the recently murdered late-term abortionist George Tiller and his staff to a party at the governor’s mansion in 2007.  Tiller had given significant quantities of money to Sebelius’ campaign.

Boehner continues to write that, additionally, the “Speaker’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions.”

Boehner has previously made no secret of his opposition to the abortion-funding Democratic health-care bill.  As he wrote on National Review Online in July, “If a health-care bill doesn’t lower costs for middle-class families, but does require them to subsidize abortion-on-demand with their hard-earned tax dollars, one has to ask a fundamental question: For whom was this bill actually written?”

He continued: “Was it written for the millions of Americans who were promised a health-care bill that lowers costs? Or is it really for the radical special-interest and lobbying groups that invested millions to elect a cooperative president and Congress?”

“We’re very close. Clearly, things happen. Delay tactics can be employed,” Hoyer told reporters on a conference call.  Hoyer said that the ultimate vote on the bill could take place as late as Monday or Tuesday, in time to dodge further delay from Wednesday’s Veterans Day holiday.

Antonia Ferrier, spokeswoman for House Republican Leader John Boehner, responded drily to Hoyer’s statements. “Nice try Rep. Hoyer, but you can’t blame Republicans when the fact is you just don’t have the votes,” she said.

In addition to spending concerns over the bill - with an estimated cost of $1.2 trillion - the radical expansion of federal funding of abortion in the Obama administration’s top domestic priority has emerged as its biggest hurdle.

On Thursday, a clarion call from pro-life Republican lawmakers drew thousands of citizens to Capitol Hill to protest the bill’s abortion funding as well as its health coverage for illegal immigrants.  Rep. Boehner’s office estimated the crowd at around 10,000.

Family Research Council Tony Perkins denounced the bill at the rally as “a bailout for the abortion industry.”

About a dozen protesters criticizing the bill’s abortion expansion were arrested at House Speaker Pelosi’s office during Friday’s rally.  Members of the group were variously charged with unlawful conduct, disorderly conduct, and unlawful entry.

This new evidence, explains the report, contains "borderline cases where we felt we did not have quite enough evidence to call for their defunding," but which "warrant further investigation by the CCHD and the USCCB and bolster our case that the CCHD grants process is in need of major reform."

BVM’s first report on the CCHD, released in August, revealed that four CCHD-funded groups were actively supporting abortion and/or contraception and numerous others were advocating for health-care reform without prejudice to abortion funding.  The CCHD responded by defunding two of the former groups, but defended their grants to the others and did not address the issue about how the groups were given funding in the first place.

Then last week a number of Catholic organizations, including BVM, Human Life International, and American Life League, formed a coalition - Reform CCHD Now - calling for a massive reform of CCHD and exhorting Catholics to boycott the upcoming collection on November 21-22.

The first part of BVM’s second report exposes two groups as examples of CCHD grantees that are offering or supporting ‘family planning’ services, a euphemism that typically includes contraception.

The first is Preble Street, a Maine group which offers homeless shelters and soup kitchens, but that makes "family planning" services available at one of their day shelters.

The second is the San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP), which has strongly supported health centers that offer emergency contraception and ‘family planning’ services.  One offers these services to youth aged 12 to 21 without need for parental consent.  Notably, SFOP successfully campaigned to secure a $200,000 grant for two such health centers.

The second part of the report reveals that seven CCHD grantees, as well as several Catholic Charities branches, are part of a California coalition of campaign partners called Mobilize the Immigrant Vote (MIV).  MIV brings together community organizations and equips them "to register, educate, and mobilize their constituents for electoral participation."

As BVM founder Rob Gasper told LifeSiteNews.com, however, MIV is not simply focused on encouraging people to vote, but to vote according to MIV’s agenda, which includes support for abortion and same-sex ‘marriage.’

MIV’s policy platform advocates for ‘reproductive health’ services, a vague and oft-used euphemism that typically includes contraception and abortion.  This stance is further clarified by their 2008 voters guide, which urged voting against parental notifications for minors seeking abortion (Proposition 4).  The voters guide also came out against Proposition 8, which prevented same-sex ‘marriage.’  Notably, Planned Parenthood is listed as a campaign partner alongside CCHD’s grantees.

"They don’t just want to register people to vote," said Gasper.  "They basically want to … indoctrinate them on these social issues.  That’s their major goal."

Indeed, as one MIV leader explained, they focus on educating people to vote according to their member groups’ interests.  "We don’t think it’s responsible or very good organizing to just get people out to vote," said Nancy Berlin, MIV Executive Committee Chair.  "We want to make sure that the work that we do is linked to the broader missions of our community organizations and fosters the work that they are already doing."

Of course, "the grantees might be able to say ‘Well, we just used their materials.  We didn’t know what they were all about.’," said Gasper. However, according to BVM’s report, "this in actuality cannot be the case," since MIV insists that they developed their platform and voters guide in conjunction with their campaign partners, presumably including the CCHD grantees.

"[These groups'] association with MIV raises questions which must be answered immediately," the BVM report reads.  "Did they distribute the MIV produced voter material? Why would they participate in a voter mobilization drive led by a group acting directly against Church teaching? Will they publicly state their adherence to the pro-life teachings of the Catholic Church?"

"We again ask the USCCB to reform the CCHD grants process," the report continues, "so Catholics can be assured that not a single penny of their donations are used to fund groups which support or are sympathetic to grave evils condemned by Church teaching."

While BVM’s reports on the CCHD have focused strictly on grantees’ promotion of policies contrary to Church teaching, primarily in regard to life issues, the CCHD has been accused for decades of supporting radical left-wing organizations.

The CCHD is meant to be the USCCB’s domestic anti-poverty campaign, and through their advertising they present themselves as fighting poverty in America.  As critics have noted, however, many Catholics are not aware that the organization specifically does not fund groups that work directly with the poor, such as crisis pregnancy centers.  In fact, despite the advertising, the CCHD’s mandate is rather to work with "community-controlled, self-help organizations."

The Reform CCHD Now coalition is calling on American Catholics to download and print out special coupons that can be put in the collection basket on November 21-22 in lieu of money.  The coupons indicate that the money which would have been given to CCHD is being given instead to a group that conforms to Church teaching on social justice and life and family issues.

The study appeared in the most recent issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry and examined data from a sampling of 500 women who were interviewed six times between the ages of 15 and 30, each time being asked whether they had been pregnant and, if so, what the outcome of that pregnancy had been.

The study revealed that unwanted pregnancy leading to abortion is likely to be a risk factor for mental-health problems that include depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, alcohol dependence, and illicit drug dependence, while unwanted pregnancy that ends in the birth of the baby does not carry the same risk factor.

Dr. Fergusson observed, "those having an abortion and reporting negative reactions had rates of mental health disorders that were approximately 1.4 to 1.8 times higher than those not having an abortion."

Of those women who had undergone an abortion, more than 85 percent reported a least one negative emotional reaction, including sorrow, sadness, guilt, regret, grief and disappointment.

A similar number reported at least one positive reaction, including relief, happiness and satisfaction. The findings suggest that many women experienced a mixture of both positive and negative emotions about having an abortion.

Earlier reports from the same study, released in 2006, found that more than 40 percent of those who had an abortion suffered major depression within four years prior to the study, nearly double the rate of those who had never been pregnant. The 2006 report also found that the risk of developing an anxiety disorder also doubled in women who had abortions.

The report concluded: "Collectively, this evidence raises important questions about the practice of justifying termination of pregnancy on the grounds that this procedure will reduce risks of mental health problems in women having unwanted pregnancy.

"Currently there is no evidence to support the assumptions underlying this practice, and the findings of the present study suggest that abortion may, in fact, increase mental health risks among those women who find seeking and obtaining an abortion a distressing experience."

The report further stated that the study showed no evidence to "support strong pro-choice positions that claim unwanted pregnancy terminated by abortion is without mental health risks."

Brendan Malone, from Family Life International New Zealand, said the report was just one of several new studies which highlighted the fact that women are not receiving all of the facts when they seek out an abortion.

Citing a Canadian study published in September in the International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, which showed women who had an abortion in the first or second trimester had a 36 percent increased risk of later having a premature baby, and women who had undergone more than one abortion had a 93 percent risk of later having a premature baby, Malone said, "Counselling provided to women seeking out abortions is so woefully inadequate that it is practically non-existent."

"In the vast majority of cases, abortion ‘counseling’ in New Zealand (and elsewhere) merely consists of ticking a series of boxes, and women are very rarely, if ever, informed of the scientifically established risks that they will be exposing themselves to, and the support that is available to them to pursue alternatives to abortion."

Malone said one of the consistent themes his group’s post-abortion counselling team hears is that women were never informed of all the risks and alternatives available to them before opting for an abortion.

"Tragically, these same women also state that they probably would have chosen not to abort their babies had they received proper counseling about the risk factors, and the other options that were open to them."

Malone said pro-abortion lobbyists "like to throw the word ‘choice’ around."

"But how can we honestly claim that women choosing abortion are making a free and informed decision when they haven’t been properly advised about the risks of having an abortion, and the alternatives available to them."

The full text of Professor David Fergusson’s research paper "Reactions to abortion and subsequent mental health" is available here .

Sr. Quinn has been active since the 1970s as a leading advocate of abortion, homosexuality, and ordination of women in the Catholic Church, and has been escorting outside the ACU Health Clinic in Hinsdale for at least six years. When LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) learned of Quinn’s activities as an abortion escort last month and contacted Quinn’s prioress, Sinsinawa Dominican Sr. Patricia Mulcahey, Mulcahey defended Quinn’s actions as “accompanying women who are verbally abused by protestors.”

After LSN’s report received wide attention, however, the Sinsinawa Dominicans released a statement apologizing for Quinn’s actions and indicating that Quinn had been told her actions were “in violation of her profession as a Dominican religious.”

In a Wednesday Chicago Tribune article, Quinn said she is ending what she calls her “peacekeeping,” insisting that “this is my decision.” “Respect for women’s moral agency is of critical importance to me, and I look forward to continuing to dialogue with our congregation on these matters as a way of informing my actions as well as educating the community,” she said.

She continued: “As a peacekeeper, my goal is to enable women to enter a reproductive health clinic in dignity and without fear of being physically assaulted. … I am very worried that the publicity around my presence will lead to violations of every woman’s right to privacy and expose them to further violence.”

Quinn went on to urge pro-lifers who regularly witness at the Hinsdale Clinic, who she claimed to have “seen emotionally as well as physically threaten women,” to cease what she called their “war against women.”

Lynn Benz, who has been a sidewalk counselor at the Hinsdale clinic for nine years, had a very different account of the scene at the Hinsdale clinic, however.

Benz explained to LSN that, because the pro-life counselors are not allowed onto the clinic property, they cannot contact customers unless the customers themselves choose to approach them. Benz says she usually stands in the middle of the driveway, which allows cars to drive by on either side or stop if they wish to speak to her.

“They can choose to talk to me, or they can pull in,” said Benz. “We don’t enter the property. How would we physically threaten them? And why? It would probably make them run faster for the door.”

The other 25-45 people who regularly pray at the clinic, said Benz, peacefully pray the rosary off clinic property, and do not engage in shouting or protesting. She called Sr. Quinn’s statements accusing the group of intimidation tactics “unbelievable.”

“There are protests, there are different forms [of pro-life activism],” she said. “We are not out there protesting. We are out their praying and counseling - that’s it. It’s not a protest forum. That’s not what we’re about there. ”

John Bray, another regular pro-lifer at the clinic, agreed that “there’s no way anybody has physically assaulted anybody going into the clinic,” and called Quinn’s claims “quite frankly without basis.”

“We are there to pray in a peaceful manner, which we do,” he said.

In terms of violence, Bray said that police have been involved, but not because of the pro-lifers’ activities. “About a year ago, we did call the police on one guy who got in my face and told me how many times he could kill me,” he noted.

Bray says he considers his and other pro-lifers’ presence as the true source of help for women, who often feel forced into abortions by their circumstances, or even by other people. “We have witnessed some pretty sad situations over the years of the women crying and literally being dragged into the clinic by those who brought her,” he said.

Presented to the UN General Assembly late last month, "The Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health" by special rapporteur Anand Grover references not only the Yogyakarta Principles, but also a hotly-disputed "General Recommendation" by the Committee monitoring compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Recommendation 20 would read a new non-discrimination category based on "sexual orientation and gender identity" into that treaty, even though UN member states have repeatedly rejected inclusion of such a category in any binding international law document.

Critics see a coordinated push to promote the Yogyakarta Principles, injecting it into the UN system via repeated reference and thus create an impression that a "soft law" norm exists. The Yogyakarta Principles purport to "reflect the existing state of human rights law" with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity, yet merely reflect the policy predilections of the roughly 30 self-selected experts, activists and UN bureaucrats who crafted them. Indeed, terms such as "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" are not defined in any binding international law document and would likely never be accepted by UN Member States.

The specific Principles referred to in the Grover report are Principles 17 and 18. Although the context references informed consent regarding medical procedures among "vulnerable groups," the text of Principles 17 and 18 contain several controversial mandates. Principle 17 would require states to "Facilitate access by those seeking body modifications related to gender reassignment" (i.e., "sex change" operations), while Principle 18 would require that states "Ensure that any medical or psychological treatment or counseling does not, explicitly or implicitly, treat sexual orientation and gender identity as medical conditions to be treated, secured or suppressed." Such a mandate would deny someone struggling with sexual disorders the option of receiving reparative therapy.

Grover is an activist attorney from India who litigated the case that resulted in a lower court ruling this past summer that India’s anti-sodomy law violated the nation’s constitution. Last year he succeeded Paul Hunt – one of thirty Yogyakarta draftsmen – as special rapporteur on health.

Grover is further credited with having helped draft the International Guidelines on Human Rights and HIV/AIDS , a 1996 document reissued in 2002 that calls for the repeal of "Criminal law prohibiting sexual acts (including adultery, sodomy, fornication and commercial sexual encounters) between consenting adults in private" – a step critics point out would fuel the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Grover’s appointment as health rapporteur was welcomed by activist organizations such as the International HIV/AIDS Alliance. The group, which promotes "community action on AIDS in developing countries," noted at the time that "Anand has passionately advocated for the rights of sex workers, drug users and men who have sex with men," calling the appointment "a tremendous opportunity and a step in the right direction."

The development comes just two days after Rep. Chris Smith warned thousands of listeners on a pro-life webcast that House leadership was likely to come up with language that would appear to lessen the bill’s abortion threat.  But, as Smith and other leaders on the webcast insisted, Democrats in the House are not about to give up the "abortion industry bailout" in the bill.

"Today we see yet another phony amendment designed to subsidize and expand the abortion industry cloaked in deceptive language," Smith said following the introduction of the Ellsworth amendment.

"Under the new arrangement, instead of an HHS employee issuing blood money checks for elective abortions, HHS will pay a contractor to issue checks for abortion on demand," Smith explained.  "It is a distinction without a difference.  The public should not be fooled nor should any pro-life Democrat."

In the Ellsworth plan, the government-run public health insurance option would still cover abortion, but would have to contract with private contractors to carry out the administrative functions related to paying for elective abortion.

Congressional pro-life leaders insisted that only Stupak and Pitts’ Hyde language would suffice to end the bill’s threat.

"If they truly want to keep abortion out of the health care bill, they must accept the Stupak-Pitts amendment, that says clearly and plainly that there can be no funding for abortion and no government subsidies for plans that cover abortion," said Smith.  Pro-life Republican Rep. Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania called Ellsworth’s amendment a "sham."

National Right to Life Committee Legislative Director Douglas Johnson said that, "The pro-abortion House Democratic leadership is using Ellworth’s phony language to undercut the real pro-life amendment [from Stupak].

"The Ellsworth language is the legislative equivalent of putting pancake makeup on a cancer, rather than performing lifesaving surgery."

Initially dismissed by President Obama and mainstream media reports on the health bill, the abortion issue has come to the fore in recent weeks as the primary battleground on which Democrats fear the legislation could be defeated.  The bill’s potential radical change in federal policy on funding abortion has prompted 40 Democrats, led by Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, to demand that the full House at least have an up-or-down vote on the Stupak/Pitts amendment, which is similar to the famous Hyde amendment that disallows federal funding of abortion.  Stupak and other sources acknowledge that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will not allow the vote opportunity, because the amendment is seen as very likely to succeed.

However, a crucial and unexpected turn of events this week could serve to prevent Stupak from whipping his colleagues, and even from casting his much-anticipated rule vote.

Stupak’s mother-in-law, Elaine Olsen, passed away Sunday in Escanaba, MI, and Stupak’s office confirmed the Congressman would be out of town and thus cancelled his activities on the Hill for the rest of this week.

An anonymous senior House leadership aide told FOX News that Stupak’s absence would not change the shape of abortion negotiations, but another top Democrat had a different take.  When asked if Stupak’s absence could make an impact, the lawmaker responded: "Yeah. Big time."

Rep. Pitts, who has worked closely with Stupak to block the bill’s abortion expansion, suggested that leaders were pursuing the "compromise" in order to exploit Stupak’s absence.

Meanwhile, H.R. 3962 inched closer to its final destination Tuesday evening after leadership filed the so-called "manager’s amendment," setting off a 72-hour minimum time buffer to allow lawmakers to read the bill before it is put to a vote.  The House Rules Committee will meet at 2 p.m. on Friday to determine the rules for the final debate, in preparation for a possible vote Saturday evening at 6 p.m.

Though House Democrats are working hard to ram the bill through on a tight schedule, there has been an increasing fear that their swift action will not be reflected in the Senate.  Senior Congressional Democrats told ABC News today that getting the health bill done by the end of the year was "a no-go."

Only a week ago, President Barack Obama said at a fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that he was "absolutely confident" he’ll have a health bill to sign by the end of the year.

Asked directly by ABC News, "Will you pass health care reform this year?" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid simply replied "We are not going to be bound by any timetables.  We are going to do this as quickly as we can."

It is considered generally easier to pass controversial legislation in non-election years such as 2009, when lawmakers faced with tough votes are less concerned about assuaging their constituency back home.  Also, House Democrats are likely to be more reticent about voting on the contentious bill if they have no feel for how their counterparts in the Senate will vote.

After enduring a protracted legal battle spanning fifteen years, the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act has finally gone into full effect [yesterday] without further delay.

The Illinois Medical Disciplinary Board and the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation Wednesday morning decided to enforce without further delay the pro-life law, which requires that one parent or legal guardian must be notified 48 hours in advance when a minor aged seventeen or younger seeks an abortion.

"This is a great victory for Illinois families. Girls that face an unwanted pregnancy will be guaranteed access to the most important pregnancy crisis counselors: their parents," said Tom Brejcha, President and Chief Counsel, Chicago-based Thomas More Society in a statement. "We’ve fought this legal battle so that Illinois would join with the majority of the people in the nation who value parental rights and the well-being of their children."

The Thomas More Society (TMS), a Chicago-based public interest firm, litigated for well over a decade for the enforcement of the law, which remained in legal limbo because the state Supreme Court refused to issue rules - mandated by the law - regarding an appeals process for minors requesting a "bypass hearing." The rules finally were issued three years ago, when a reconstituted Court finally issued the rules.

However litigation dragged on, since the American Civil Liberties Union then intervened, arguing that the parental notification law was unconstitutional.

The litigation finally saw its efforts pay off when the Seventh US Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the parental notification law on July 14. TMS Chief Counsel Thomas Brejcha argued against the ACLU before the federal court, saying that the law was necessary to safeguard minors and put a stop to cycles of sexual abuse by sexual predators, who coerce them into having abortions without telling their parents in order to cover up their crimes.

The federal appeals court ruling affirmed the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision to implement a rule that provided for minors in extraordinary cases to have expedited and confidential "bypass hearing" appeals. A few weeks later, when the Circuit Court issued its mandate, the Parental Notice of Abortion Act became fully effective and enforceable for the first time since 1995.

However, the Illinois Medical Disciplinary Board, which has responsibility for enforcing the Parental Notice Act against physicians who willfully violate the law, had further delayed implementation of the law, by recommending that the Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation suspend enforcement of the law for ninety days, beginning on August 5, 2009.

But this morning’s decision by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation brings further delays in implementing the parental notification law to an end.

Since the passage of the Parental Notice of Abortion Act in 1995, over 50,000 Illinois girls below the age of majority have obtained abortions, more than 4,000 of whom were 14 years old or younger, without any requirement to notify their parents beforehand.

Illinois now joins 36 other states enforcing similar parental notification laws.