Friday, February 29, 2008
John McCain's campaign and conservative pundits have listed the numerous times in Obama's short Senate career where he sided with the extremes in his party against broadly supported compromises on issues such as immigration, ethics reform, terrorist surveillance and war funding. Fighting on the fringe with a handful of liberals is one thing, but consider his position on an issue that passed both houses of Congress unanimously in 2002.
That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. During the partial-birth abortion debate, Congress heard testimony about babies that had survived attempted late-term abortions. Nurses testified that these preterm living, breathing babies were being thrown into medical waste bins to die or being "terminated" outside the womb. With the baby now completely separated from the mother, it was impossible to argue that the health or life of the mother was in jeopardy by giving her baby appropriate medical treatment.
The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive. To address the concerns of pro-choice lawmakers, the bill included language that said nothing "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right" of the baby. In other words, the bill wasn't intruding on Roe v. Wade.
Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.
And this makes Obama worthy of the highest office in the US for what reason? Because he supports infanticide?
Those who can read this, and still vote for him because they believe he's good for the country are either lying to themselves or delusional. To say they're misguided would be dishonest.
A group of highly touted African-American pro-life leaders closed out Black History Month with a press conference at the Family Research Council headquarters in Washington. The event drew pastors, parents, leaders, and activists from across America to call on abortion advocates to stop preying on the black community.
Notice how this event garnered zero media coverage. Gee, I wonder why?
The results prompted a federal advisory panel on vaccines to water down their preference for the combo vaccine ProQuad, which protects against measles, mumps and rubella as well as chickenpox.
In the study of children ages 12 months through 23 months, the rate of seizures was twice as high in toddlers who got ProQuad, compared with those who got one shot for chickenpox and one for the three other diseases.
The risk translates to about one extra case of convulsion for every 2,000 doses of ProQuad given said Dr. Nicola Klein, who lead the federally funded study. She presented the data at a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
The study focused on children who develop fevers and then go into convulsions — an occurrence that frightens parents but usually has no lingering consequences. There were no deaths in the new study.
I'm happy no children died because of this vaccine.
I'm also happy to have family physicians who refuses to push vaccines on us. On the contrary, they strongly recommend against giving dd the boosters that are allegedly required to be "healthy".
As one told me: if you knew what was in the vaccines, you'd faint. I take his word for it. I don't want to know :-(
On Thursday afternoon, the head of Malta’s mission to the UN, Ambassador Saviour F. Borg said, “Malta would like to clarify its position with respect to the language relating to sexual and reproductive health and rights in the [EU] statement. Malta firmly continues to maintain that any position taken or recommendations made regarding women’s empowerment and gender equality should not in any way create an obligation on any party to consider abortion as a legitimate form of reproductive health rights, services or commodities.”
The split in the European Union is significant because the EU hardly ever splits on questions of social policy at the UN. Even countries that are generally anti-abortion go along with the more radical approach taken by the United Kingdom, France and Germany. They do this as an agreement that the EU will always work out their differences behind closed doors and present a united front at UN negotiations.
It looks like the EU is beginning to crumble. The pro-life nations are probably tired of "going with the flow".
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Lehigh University isn't exactly a bastion of conservatism. It is probably one of the more liberal universities in this area. PP is losing its grip on its own base, and that is a good thing.
A writer who wrote a Washington Post op-ed piece arguing against the U.S. bishops’ criticism of voters who support pro-abortion politicians and ended his article with a curse of the bishops could face canonical penalties for inciting hatred against the bishops.
Joe Feuerherd, a correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, attacked the bishops’ statement “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” in the Sunday edition of the Washington Post. In their statement, the bishops noted that voters’ political decisions could affect their salvation.
Feuerherd also criticized the bishops’ efforts to ensure the worthy reception of Holy Communion in the case of pro-abortion politicians who attend Mass.
The entire article can be read at the link above.
The bishops aren't the ones who are going to be damned.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
March 1988 article on Katherine Hepburn and her family's ties to PP
Mrs. Hepburn was keenly aware of the interrrelationship of birth control and abortion, which was widespread.
''Abortions would be unnecessary if birth control were practiced,'' she asserted in 1936. ''It would eliminate the causes of abortions, of which there are some 500,000 every year in the United States.''
Her daughter has long been an outspoken supporter of abortion rights, about which she has never entertained doubts. ''None at all,'' Ms. Hepburn said firmly. ''The people who are alive are the ones who interest me. I'm not particularly interested in the next world, because I have no control over it at all.
How lovely :-(
The Independent reports that the Children, Schools and Families Committee will "call Catholic bishops to account" for recent isolated attempts to re-install genuine Catholic doctrine on moral and sexual teaching into the schools' curriculum. The reaction from Parliament comes in response to a document issued by Lancaster Bishop Patrick O'Donohue, "Fit for Mission: Schools," an instruction to revamp Catholic education in the diocese of Lancaster based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The entire article can be read on the title link above.
Catholic schools in Britain aren't allowed to teach authentic Church doctrine? This tells me the state of affairs for Catholics across the pond are far worse off than I imagined.
They (the schools) could easily solve their problem by refusing state funding for their support.
“This is an important victory for the cause of life,” pro-life Sen. Sam Brownback told LifeNews.com after the vote.
“In the midst of the national debate about abortion, we have come to some fundamental agreements. We should not be using American tax dollars to fund abortion," he added.
Almost all of the Senate Republicans other than Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe and Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter voted for the amendment.
They were joined by Democrats Evan Bayh of Indiana, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Harry Reid of Nevada, and Ken Salazar of Colorado.
The three senators running for president, abortion advocates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and John McCain, who opposes abortion, were not present for the vote.
I'm not surprised by Specter's vote. He has proven time and again he is nothing more than a RINO.
During the Tuesday debate, Obama said he should have stood up against the life-saving legislation.
“It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped,” Obama said.
“And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better,” he added.
This isn't the first time Obama has said the biggest mistake he made as senator was voting to help try to stop Terri from being euthanized.
During an April 2007 debate, Obama said, "I think professionally the biggest mistake that I made was when I first arrived in the Senate. There was a debate about Terri Schiavo, and a lot of us, including me, left the Senate with a bill that allowed Congress to intrude where it shouldn't have.”
And this is what people want in a president????? Truly sickening!
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
In 2003, Phill Kline, then Attorney General of Kansas, began an investigation of the Johnson County Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri. Using subpoenaed medical records, Kline uncovered evidence that seemed to prove that Planned Parenthood had willfully neglected to report instances of child rape, had forged their viability reports, and had performed illegal late-term abortions. (The records had the names and other personal information carefully redacted to protect the women's privacy.)
Planned Parenthood decided to ignore the charges. As court hearings began, PP's army of lawyers relied on procedural ploys to delay and squelch the case. In the public arena, no attempt was made to counter the charges or even to acknowledge their existence. Planned Parenthood, it turned out, wasn't interested in defending itself against the charges. Instead, it had decided to destroy Attorney General Kline's reputation.
The abortion giant put out a press release which suggested that his charges, which they repeatedly referred to as "baseless," were pure political posturing. They accused him of "further[ing] his political ambition of making abortion illegal by using unethical tactics." "No health care provider should be threatened with felony convictions," said PPKM CEO Peter Brownlie, "simply because elected officials oppose legal abortion."
Following the lead of Planned Parenthood's formidable PR machine, dozens of newspapers, blogs, and public figures all went for the jugular. "Kline just personifies the abortion debate," ABC News contended in October of 2007. "This is a guy who has never tried any cases and has a very marginal record as an attorney, and so it is very much seen, I think, even by the pro-life people, that Kline's personal beliefs are his No. 1 priority." This preposterous claim comes straight out of Planned Parenthood's talking points. Apparently ABC's zeal for abortion is more important than its commitment to truth.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL, predictably called Kline "one of the most extreme anti-choice politicians." But then she went on to make the totally false claim that he was "invading people's most private medical information." The records, as I mentioned above, had been carefully purged of any identifying information.
The New York Times also parroted Planned Parenthood's official line, calling him "an anti-abortion zealot who gained national notoriety by misusing his office to further his ideology," while gliding over the charges themselves, which they wrongly characterized as a "gross assault on privacy and legal rights."
Someone who annoys PP and the NYT is someone worth listening to. Keep up the good work Phill Kline!
PP is disgusting. No other comments are necessary.
All society "is called to respect the life and dignity of the seriously ill and the dying", said the Holy Father. "Though aware of the fact that 'it is not science that redeems man', all society, and in particular the sectors associated with medical science, are duty bound to express the solidarity of love, and to safeguard and respect human life in every moment of its earthly development, especially when it is ill or in its terminal stages.
"In more concrete terms", he added, "this means ensuring that every person in need finds the necessary support through appropriate treatments and medical procedures - identified and administered using criteria of therapeutic proportionality - while bearing in mind the moral duty to administer (on the part of doctors) and to accept (on the part of patients) those means for preserving life which, in a particular situation, may be considered as 'ordinary'".
As for forms of treatment "with significant levels of risk or that may reasonably be judged to be 'extraordinary', recourse thereto may be considered as morally acceptable, but optional. Furthermore, it will always be necessary to ensure that everyone has the treatment they require, and that families tried by the sickness of one of their members receive support, especially if the sickness is serious or prolonged".
“That no one calling themselves Catholics should vote for anyone who supports baby killing. That Catholics can control any election if only Catholics ceased voting for members of the Democratic Party, which has in their party platform a clause that supports the killing of unborn children”.
On this, I am in substantial agreement. It is obvious that the Doctor has not read much of what I have written over these many years. Even a cursory reading of my writings would make it very clear that I am disillusioned with the Democratic Party on issues of life and marriage.
However, I am also aware of the growth of groups like “Democrats for Life” who seek to return that Party, which once prided itself on hearing the cry of the poor, back to its roots in order to move forward.
The Democratic Party was stolen by the current leadership. I long for the day when Democrats,along with Republicans, recognize our youngest neighbors,children in the womb, as having not only a right to be born but a right to live a full life until natural death.
In other words, I long for the day when we live in a Nation where both major Parties accept the truth that killing innocent children in the womb is intrinsically evil and they make it illegal. Perhaps then we could have a true debate over many, many other vital issues.
I don't believe the Democratic Party will ever be redeemed. The Republican Party, otoh, can be saved, if politicians like Giuliani are driven out (remember he was once a Democrat). It will take time, but it can be done.
Monday, February 25, 2008
PP tries to give the appearance he would be supporting them today. I seriously doubt he would stand firmly with PP, given they have been advocating the murder of black children at a rate that far exceeds the rate of white ones.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
What really struck me, however, as I was reading the Hastings Center piece (besides, of course, the hard-to-ignore fact that the authors were defending killing newborn infants, including those who weren't suffering yet, but probably would suffer in the future) is how ill prepared we are to respond to the arguments presented by the authors. It seems to me that the pro-life movement is somewhat behind the times in its approach to responding to the core principles of the Culture of Death, especially in its newest incarnations.
While much of the pro-life movement continues to desperately try to prove to the opposition that the fetus is human, by showing pictures of the unborn child, or proving that the fetus can feel pain, the whole pro-death movement has moved on. With the advent of embryonic research, immoral reproduction technologies, and now infant euthanasia, the pro-life movement has simply attempted to adopt and adapt old arguments for a whole new fight, which calls to mind that old Scripture quote about new wine in old wineskins.
"Human life," we point out time after time, "is a continuity that begins at conception and continues through to the moment of natural death, and since it is wrong to kill an adult, it is also wrong to kill a child, born or unborn."
But this just won't do any more.
The cameras inserted into the womb have proven beyond a doubt that the uterus is not a twilight zone that suddenly transforms a formless blob of inhuman tissue into a hearty, healthy baby at the moment of birth. And hence it is somewhat condescending to our opponents to assume that the they are just so plain stupid that they can't tell that the fetus looks, acts, and feels like a human, and is a human, albeit in its nascent stage of development.
What we seem to have failed to recognize, therefore, at least with the necessary clarity, is that the humanity or inhumanity of the fetus is often no longer the issue - at least, not within the elite spheres of the pro-death movement. The pro-death movement has evolved into a subtler, more radical, and much more dangerous form, a form that requires new intellectual weapons to fight.
Unfortunately, that is what we are up against today. Formulating an argument against the pro-death group, without hysteria and emotionalism, will be the only way to end this holocaust. They are cunning with their use of language. We need to learn from them, and take what is necessary to defeat them at their own game.
In 2005 the world was horrified when it was revealed that in the Netherlands doctors were not only openly admitting that they had killed disabled newborn infants, but that the medical institution was actively promoting child euthanasia through the so-called Groningen Protocol. The protocol - the full name of which is The Groningen Protocol for Euthanasia in Newborns - lays out a set of guidelines that must be followed in making and executing the decision to kill a newborn infant.
The revelation that newborn euthanasia was both common and acceptable in the Netherlands was greeted with harsh criticisms from around the world, with one Italian Minister going to far as to accuse the Netherlands of Nazism. Others expressed their disgust that many of the children who were being euthanized by Dutch doctors were children with Spina Bifida, a condition with which many people have lived well into adulthood and had fulfilling lives.
As the authors explain, there are three classes of newborns that can be euthanized under the Groningen Protocol, including: 1) Those who have no chance of survival, 2) those who "may survive after a period of intensive treatment but expectations for their future are very grim;" and 3) those "who do not depend on technology for physiologic stability and whose suffering is severe, sustained, and cannot be alleviated."
How sickening there are "doctors" out there who think killing newborns is necessary.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Dom held Yvonne's hand and demanded: "You start fighting, don't you dare give up on me now. I've had enough, stop mucking around and start breathing. Come back to me."
Incredibly, just two hours later, she steadily began to start breathing again.
Within five days, they were able to switch her ventilator off, and she regained consciousness for the first time to see Dom standing beside her.
Yvonne said hearing her husband shouting gave her the strength to pull through.
In fact, Yvonne has made such a recovery that she is back running dance classes and looking after her eight-year-old son.
She said: "I can't remember exactly what he said but I never liked getting told off by Dom. Something inside me just clicked and I began to fight again.
My dad did something similar to my uncle in 1991, after he had suffered a massive stroke. The doctors told my dad Uncle J. was gone, they couldn't detect any brain waves, and were taking off life support immediately. Dad told the doctors to leave the room, and told off my uncle. He yelled at him to wake up, otherwise he was going to die. Knowing my dad, I'm sure he was cussing at Uncle J. to get him angry. Sure enough, several hours later he woke from his coma.
My uncle does not remember the stroke, but he hasn't fully recovered and is permanently disabled. Doctors should not be so hasty in making these kinds of life and death decisions. The woman in the article and my uncle are living proof of how wrong they can be.
On Saturday, the missionary from Bethlehem begins a trip that will take her to Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, among the 30 least developed countries in the world, according to the United Nations Human Development Report. She said this time she is working with another Catholic charity, Apostles of Jesus, to provide wells for villages in those countries.
Benner said travel to Africa is essential to her vocation -- fundraising is only half the job: ''I feel the biggest part of my mission work is going there and being a witness.''
Recent events such as violent protests in Kenya over a disputed election do not deter Benner.
''This is how I know it is God's will and not my will: There's no fear,'' Benner said. ''When I fly, I am alone. If it were my will, I would be scared to travel into these countries.''
Picture of Holly Benner from 2007:
Praying for her in her quest to provide life to the people of Africa.
The rest of us in the other 49 states should learn a little about what happened in Georgia. We need to present a united front in our individual states, and not get bogged down in every little detail.
At the same time that news has come out that the Toronto Catholic School board has refused to participate in pro-homosexual activities, homosexual activists are making significant inroads in US schools, as a booklet titled, "Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth," is set to be distributed to all 16,000 school districts in the country.
The 24-page booklet by the National Education Association and American Psychological Association, tells students that homosexuality is a "normal expression of human sexuality".
"What's so scary and dogmatic about this report is that it communicates that religious-based viewpoints are harmful, and even dangerous," said Candi Cushman, education analyst for Focus on the Family Action.
From the twisted viewpoint of the NEA and the APA, homosexuality is "normal" and religious viewpoints are "harmful and dangerous". We live in the days of what is good is evil and what is evil is good.
I wonder if I called any of the four districts in Monroe county, would they admit they have or are getting this booklet? I'm sure they would all deny it. Another one of the million reasons why I continue to homeschool.
So the proof that the Catholic school system in Toronto is homophobic is the mere refusal to participate in the survey? This is the common cry in the gay "community". Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice (if there was a gay "gene", it would have been found by now).
Their argument is others must be accepting of their choices, hence the "inclusive" curriculum they want to push on unsuspecting children. Homosexuals are called to be celibate, which is also one of their reasons to accuse others of "homophobia". We hate the sin, but love the sinner. That does not mean we condone their behavior, which is clearly part of the culture of death.
"A British court held a hearing yesterday on a case of a young 30-year-old woman who committed suicide after the abortion of her twin babies. Emma Beck left a suicide note and said she faced such an intense period of grief afterwards and regret over the deaths of the babies that she killed herself "to be with them."
The court heard testimony that Beck asked doctors for help prior to the abortion but that no one was able to meet with her and they gave her the number of a counseling service.
Officials went ahead with the abortion even though she said beforehand that she had second thoughts.
Weeks later, following the abortion, she hung herself at her home."
No one listened to her, and she killed herself. ISTM she was coerced into killing her babies.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Here's the poll itself, conducted by the Morning Call/Muhlenburg College.
It seems this will be the first time Pennsylvania will have a say in the outcome of who the presidential candidate will be.
Is there something in the water in Wisconsin, Virginia, and Iowa? I'm stunned how anyone could make the claim to be pro-life, yet will vote for pro-death candidates. It tells me these people are either not really pro-life, or there is something more sinister going on.
I'm speechless :-(
The exit polls found 74 percent of Republican voters in Wisconsin say they are pro-life while just 25 percent say they favor keeping abortions legal.
Looking at the pro-life side, 27 percent say they want all abortions illegal and another 47 percent say they want most abortions illegal.
So, out of the 74% of those who said they are pro-life, 47% of those want most abortions illegal. I'm guessing these people are stating in the cases of rape and incest and ectopic pregnancies abortion should remain as an option.
I hate to say this, but supporting abortion of any kind does not make you pro-life. The death and destruction of innocents is never permissible.
I suggest those who believe it is, watch the following video:
HR 536 was the “Paramount Right to Life” amendment that would extend constitutional protection to unborn children “from the moment of fertilization without regard to age, race, sex, health, function, or condition of dependency.”
Committee chairman Ed Lindsey ultimately called for tabling the bill after seven hours of debate lasting two days because he was concerned about legal issues resulting from it.
“This proposed constitutional amendment seeks to make a direct attack on Roe v. Wade. In fact, however, the overwhelming evidence is that such an attack through this type of constitutional amendment will in all likelihood fail," he said."
Why not let the bill be voted on? Given the number of hours of debate, it would seem there is interest in the bill.
I would think if such a bill would pass, and abortion is outlawed in Georgia, other states would follow suit by their precedence. It would mean the end of Roe v Wade, with states' rights trumping federal law. This is what the pro-death crowd fears the most.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Many live as if there was no God or they make themselves like gods or claim rights that belong to God alone — who lives, who dies, interfering with God's plan for procreation through contraception, in-vitro fertilization, abortion, cloning and experimenting on human embryos, euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. We can be tempted to separate ourselves from others, caring only about ourselves and our families alone, with little thought given to eternal life or correcting injustices. But Jesus taught us that we must imitate His humble service. He taught us the way to salvation was to take up our own cross and follow Him.
A true follower of Christ will not be afraid to make sacrifices and even face death. By His death and resurrection, Jesus has taken away the sting of death. Shortly before his own death Pope John Paul II said "We must get used to thinking confidently about the mystery of death so that the definitive encounter with God occurs in a climate of interior peace.""
In my own encounters, I find it very disturbing many Catholics support the above procedures. What they fail to see is that each one of those embryos is another person, no different than the rest of us, and should be allowed to grow and develop.
I've also found the attitude of "it's not my problem" even more disturbing. All these assaults on life are the problem of each and every one of us. People don't become involved until there is some effect on their lives, and by that time it may already be too late.
It won't be long before courts and judges will be the ones to decide who is and is not fit to live, unless we take action now.
Sure enough, the bill's intention is to provide equal protection to the unborn. It has 105 co-sponsors.
The bill was introduced on 1/22/07. Why has there been no vote on it, with the number of sponsors? It's time to get this bill moving through congress, and on President Bush's desk to be signed.
Members of Congress have recessed this week to mark Presidents' Day, but one of the first votes on the docket when they return is an intense debate on whether to open international AIDS/HIV funding to pro-abortion groups. Pro-life organizations are asking for calls and emails urging a no vote.
Abortion advocates in Congress have changed the wording of the President's Emergency plan for AIDS Relief to include funding for groups that engage in "reproductive health" and "family planning."
Those are code words international pro-abortion groups use to hide their performance of or support for abortions in other nations.
At the end of the article, it states we should contact our representative in congress and encourage them to vote no on this piece of legislation. I know I will be making that call today.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
This month the sad case of Lauren Richardson made headlines. The similarities between her situation and my sister Terri Schiavo's are striking and deeply disturbing. Lauren suffered a profound brain injury in 2006, leaving her dependent on others for her care. Like Terri, she is not hooked up to machines, is not comatose and is unquestionably very much alive.
As in Terri's case, a judge, based on hearsay evidence that this is Lauren's wish, has decided to err on the side of death and starve and dehydrate this young woman until she dies. The judge is also convinced that Lauren is in the often wrongly diagnosed (and offensively named) condition known as "persistent vegetative state" (PVS). Unfortunately, some in the media have already begun their campaign to justify Lauren's needless and heartless dehydration.For example, recently on the Fox News Channel program "Hannity & Colmes," co-host Alan Colmes incorrectly referred to this brain-injured girl as being "brain dead" — a tactic often used by dehydration supporters in the mainstream media to dehumanize Terri throughout her ordeal.
As was the case with my sister, you will soon undoubtedly see the media drumbeat begin: "Just allow this woman to die," in order to somehow convince the general public that it is "right" to "end this poor woman's suffering." (Never mind the statement's inherent contradiction: if she is truly unconscious, she is not suffering.) However, Lauren is not dying, does not have a terminal disease and her brain injury is not killing her. Just like the estimated tens of thousands of persons in similar conditions, Lauren is only being sustained by the same thing we all need to live — food and water. And there is a loving father willing and wanting to care for his daughter.
How ironic is it that millions of babies are murdered every year in the name of human rights? How is it that we, Americans especially, proudly call ourselves sophisticated and cultured while continuing to worship in the temple of humanism?
Humanism is a god — little "g". It is lustful and insatiable. Humanism is deceptive in its premise and destructive in its course. Humanism is powerful enough to convince you that life is not life, death is not death, and that education and culture make you impervious to both of them. Humanism is a spirit that demands the daily and unrepentant slaughter of innocent lives while simultaneously singing "Kumbaya" and seeking world peace.
If you are pro-choice, you should be crystal clear about one thing, abortion is murder. And, pre-meditated at that. Period. Individuals have spent their respective lifetimes in prison over less. The only difference between you and someone on death row is one thing, the law. I dare you to try and explain pro-choice to a convicted murderer. They will most likely find your argument laughable. I'm sure many of them would love to know how to write a law to justify their unjustifiable behavior. You don't want criminals living among you, but you want to engage in criminal behavior. Not criminal, you say? Oh, legal. Forgive me. Legalized child sacrifice rather than criminal child sacrifice. Like I said, the only difference is that you've got the law on your side.
Eventually, it will change and the law will not be on the side of those who are "pro-choice". Then we will see who ends up in prison for pre-meditated murder.
Health authorities estimate that 100 million women worldwide take some form of hormonal contraceptives; but there is still little media attention given to the growing concerns of scientists about its environmental impact. However, studies are leaking out into the mainstream press more frequently as public interest in the environment grows.
The Pill, along with numerous other commonly used chemicals, end up in the water system as estrogen. At a conference on breast cancer in Toronto in 1998, author and cancer surgeon Dr. Susan Love said, "Pollutants are metabolized in our bodies as estrogen. And it is lifetime exposure to estrogen that has increased world cancer rates by 26% since 1980....We live in a toxic soup of chemicals".
Studies are also showing significant evidence for a link between environmental estrogens and estrogen-like chemical pollutants and the earlier onset of puberty in girls.
The phenomenon of early-onset puberty in American girls is so pervasive, that the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society urged changing the definition of abnormal development. Ten years ago, breast development at age 8 was considered abnormally early, but a study in 1997 said that among 17,000 girls in North Carolina, almost half of blacks and 15 percent of whites had begun breast development by age 8. Studies from the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand have shown similar results.
The new definition for abnormally early breast development ought to be, the society says, 7 for white girls and 6 for black girls. Marcia Herman-Giddens, adjunct professor at the School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina, said, "My fear is that medical groups could take the data and say 'This is normal. We don't have to worry about it.' My feeling is that it is not normal. It's a response to an abnormal environment."
Kissling has written frequently about how the pro-abortion movement needs to re-examine the abortion debate and offer a few concessions while keeping virtually all abortions legal. She says Obama can lead that charge.
"It is not about beating anti-abortion advocates to death; it is about listening to the majority of Americans who believe that abortion should be legal and highly regulated, acknowledging what it is that they are afraid of and making them less afraid," Kissling explained.
"I think Barack Obama is the person who can do that. I deeply believe he is the best hope we have to ending both the abortion wars," she concluded.
The vast majority of young Americans want to see abortion outlawed. She obviously is oblivious to this fact.
The only way to have the abortion war ended is the complete eradication of this barbaric form of murder. Obviously Kissling is not intelligent enough to see that.
Monday, February 18, 2008
The American Birth Control League1 left no doubt about its plans. Its position, as expressed by Yale psychologist Arnold L. Gesell, was that "society need not wait for perfection of the infant science of eugenics before proceeding upon a course which will prevent renewal of defective protoplasm contaminating the stream of life." Gesell’s The Family and the Nation (1909), a thorough product of the new zeitgeist, advocated "eugenic violence" in dealing with inferiors. According to Gesell, "We must do as with the feebleminded, organize the extinction of the tribe." [emphases added]
IOW, kill those deemed "unfit" by the American Birth Control League.
The eugenics movement begun by Galton in England was energetically spread to the United States by his followers. Besides destroying lesser breeds (as they were routinely called) by abortion, sterilization, adoption, celibacy, two-job family separations, low-wage rates to dull the zest for life, and, above all, schooling to dull the mind and debase the character, other methods were clinically discussed in journals, including a childlessness which could be induced through easy access to pornography.2 At the same time those deemed inferior were to be turned into eunuchs, Galtonians advocated the notion of breeding a super race.
He also speaks about racial suicide here:
Advocates of Yaleman Gesell’s "eugenic violence" offensive against the underclasses swung from every point on the scientific compass. William McDougall, the eminent social psychologist, announced himself a champion of Nordic superiority; Ellsworth Huntington, prominent Yale geographer, wrote The Character of Races, showing that only one race had any real moral character. Henry Fairfield Osborn, president and founder of the American Museum of Natural History, gave the "Address of Welcome" to the Second International Congress of Eugenics; Osborn’s close friend Lothrop Stoddard wrote The Revolt Against Civilization: Menace of the Underman; and psychologist James McKeen Cattell, a force in the rise of standardized testing, wrote to Galton, "We are following in America your advice and example."
The famous humanitarian anthropologist Alfred L. Kroeber remarked acidly to a newsman that anti-eugenic protests came only from the "orthodoxly religious," rarely from the enlightened camp of science. So there it was. Keep them all in mind: Kroeber, Gesell, Ripley, McDougall, Huntington, Osborn, great scientific humanist names whose work underscored how important a role forced schooling was designed to play. Scientific studies had shown conclusively that extending the duration and intensity of schooling caused sharp declines in fertility—and sterility in many. Part of school’s stealth curriculum would be a steady expansion of its reach throughout the century.
Do we not see this happening today in schools? How many of our public schools across the country have become nothing more than PP centers? This all ties together very neatly for the pro-death crowd.
I have to say when I first read JTG's book, I was more than a little angry. He doesn't intentionally want people to become angry, just to wake up to what is going on. Many parents in the 1940's and 1950's were vilified for placing their children in Catholic schools. The same thing is being done to those who homeschool. Two very positive ways to keep their children out of the hands of the pro-death lobby.
I also have to say that not a single person has successfully refuted any of his facts. That is telling in and of itself.
Here's the video in three parts:
The number of people who have been murdered by the abortionists is outrageous. I don't know how HLI came up with their figures, but in the video it is stated over 9% of white people have been aborted, and over 25% of black people have been aborted. I have to assume they mean internationally.
How sick and twisted, and they don't even hide what they're trying to do :-(
worldwide, birthrates have declined by 50% in the last half-century.
With a birthrate of 1.3 -- a rate of 2.1 is necessary to replace a population and higher to grow it -- the groups says Europe is in serious trouble.
“But so are Africa, Asia and the Middle East – a phenomenon to which we regularly refer. While still at above replacement level, one of the greatest declines in fertility has been in Iran,”the group explained, showing that underpopulation doesn't just threaten majority Caucasion nations.
So now being concerned about birthrates for caucasians is considered racist by the left? Typical abuse of language to try and demonize pro-lifers by those who condone murdering innocents.
Here's the link to the actual article in "The Nation" written by Kathryn Joyce. Warning: article contains profanity.
Also mentioned in her article is "Demographic Winter", which is a look at the decline of families.
Let's not forget the founder of the modern eugenics movement, Margaret Sanger. Some of her own words here.
Doing a quick search at the PP website, I came up with this:
Sanger's Outreach to the African-American Community
Harlem — 1930
In 1930, Sanger opened a family planning clinic in Harlem that sought to enlist support for contraceptive use and to bring the benefits of family planning to women who were denied access to their city's health and social services. Staffed by a black physician and black social worker, the clinic was endorsed by The Amsterdam News (the powerful local newspaper), the Abyssinian Baptist Church, the Urban League, and the black community's elder statesman, W.E.B. DuBois (Chesler, 1992).
Negro Project — 1939-1942
Beginning in 1939, DuBois served on the advisory council for Sanger's "Negro Project," which was designed to serve African Americans in the rural South. The advisory council called it a "unique experiment in race-building and humanitarian service to a race subjected to discrimination, hardship, and segregation (Chesler, 1992)."
In a letter to philanthropist Albert Lasker, from whom she hoped to raise funds for the project, Sanger wrote that she wanted to help
a group notoriously underprivileged and handicapped to a large measure by a 'caste' system that operates as an added weight upon their efforts to get a fair share of the better things in life. To give them the means of helping themselves is perhaps the richest gift of all. We believe birth control knowledge brought to this group, is the most direct, constructive aid that can be given them to improve their immediate situation (Sanger, 1939, July).
In 1942, she wrote again to Lasker, saying
I think it is magnificent that we are in on the ground floor, helping Negroes to control their birth rate, to reduce their high infant and maternal death rate, to maintain better standards of health and living for those already born, and to create better opportunities for those who will be born (Sanger, 1942).
Other leaders of the African-American community who were involved in the project included Mary McLeod Bethune, founder of the National Council of Negro Women, and Adam Clayton Powell Jr., pastor of the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem.
The Negro Project was also endorsed by prominent white Americans who were involved in social justice efforts at this time, including Eleanor Roosevelt, the most visible and compassionate supporter of racial equality in her era; and the medical philanthropists, Albert and Mary Lasker, whose financial support made the project possible (Chesler, 1992).
Division of Negro Service — 1940-1943
Sanger's Birth Control Federation of America, which became Planned Parenthood Federation of American in 1942, established a Division of Negro Service to oversee the Negro Project and to implement Sanger's educational outreach to African Americans nationally. Sponsored by Sanger's fundraising efforts and directed by Florence Rose, the division provided black organizations across the country with Planned Parenthood literature, set up local educational exhibits, facilitated local and national public relations, and employed an African-American doctor, Mae McCarroll, to lobby medical groups and teach contraceptive techniques to other black doctors.
Martin Luther King Jr.
In 1966, the year Sanger died, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. said
There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. . . . Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her (King, 1966).
It goes on further to try and paint Sanger in some kind of positive light, how she was "helping" the African American community, and has been misquoted by those who didn't agree with her, especially pro-lifers. See a pattern here?
The pages in question in the rosaryfilms video are available at Google Books.
Pro-lifers are being portrayed as "racist villains" by the left, by making the claims we are only concerned about white birth rates, then go on to further demonize us by stating we lie about Margaret Sanger. The educated will see right through their lies. It's those who don't understand the pro-death/eugenics/euthanasia lobby that will be duped by them (through no fault of their own, I should say). This should wake them up.
From one student:
Billy Valentine, one of the Franciscan University of Steubenville students who helped organize the protest, told LifeNews.com that he was surprised Clinton would go to Steubenville after hundreds of students told John Kerry he was wrong on supporting abortion.
“Perhaps national Democrats will finally realize that they can't take the heat from Steubenville pro-life students," he said.
"I have been amazed by the stupidity of these pro-abortion Democrats who think they can come campaign anywhere near Steubenville, especially after the utter embarrassment John Kerry went through in 2004 when he came here,” he added.
And from Clinton himself:
Later, Clinton said Hillary should become the Democratic nominee because she will stand up to pro-life advocates.
“This is not your rally. I heard you. That's another thing you need is a president, somebody who will stick up for individual rights and not be pushed around, and she won't,” he said.
No one ever said the Clintons were intelligent. Then again, no one ever said this crop of Democrats was intelligent.
This is what has pro-death people running scared. Even those young people who consider themselves political moderates are predominantly pro-life. They understand and are saddened by how many of their generation have been slaughtered at the hands of the abortionists. They're also far more outspoken than we were, and are not afraid to force others to listen to their position.
I have great hope we are beginning to see then end of the American Holocaust.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
These are the people families and courts want to starve to death :-(
Catholics Cannot Vote for Politicians Who Support Abortion, Except for Morally Grave Reasons: Kentucky Bishops
Consistent with our nation's legal tradition we hold that all human laws must be measured against the natural law engraved in our hearts by the Creator….In particular, respect for human life is numbered among those basic values that underpin the very foundation of civilization. What we profess in defense of the sacredness of unborn human life harmonizes with our historic legal tradition founded on the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
"Abortion on demand," the bishops stress, "does not."
The letter, the release of which is clearly meant to coincide with the looming federal elections, informs Catholics that it would be cooperating with grave evil to vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor an intrinsic evil, such as abortion, unless there is a sufficiently grave reason to vote for the candidate.
"A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter's intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil," explain the bishops.
"There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate's unacceptable moral position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons." However, the bishops continue, clarifying what might constitute a "grave moral reason", "Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil."
In the letter the bishops do not ultimately give a definite guideline for what a Catholic should do when all of the candidates presented for consideration support intrinsic evils. Instead the bishops lay out the underlying principles that a Catholic must consider in such a situation, and leave the final decision up to the conscience of the voter.
"When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for a candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position but more likely to pursue other authentic human goods."
Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a memorandum to Cardinal McCarrick that was made public July 2004 here:
Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion
by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," nos. 81, 83).
2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).
3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
4. Apart from an individual's judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).
5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" , nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.
[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]
In other words, we are forbidden to vote for pro-choice candidates if there are others available who are not pro-choice.
Let's look at our current crop of candidates:
Hillary Clinton NARAL Rating 100%
Barack Obama NARAL Rating 100%
John McCain NARAL Rating 0%
Mike Huckabee No Federal rating, but considered "anti-choice" by NARAL
I specifically left Ron Paul's record out, only because he is not a viable candidate for president at this time. He is pro-life and was present at the March for Life last month.
So that leaves the question: who are we supposed to vote for? It's very clear from the ratings above the choices we face as Catholics. Consistently, and for years, I have heard Catholics of my age and slightly younger making the claims they must vote for the Democrat, as it was the party of their parents, grandparents, etc. These Democrats today are NOT of the party of the past generations. Forty years ago they were the party of the "little guy"; not anymore.
The death penalty is another issue tossed around by those who choose to vote for the pro-choice candidates, yet claim to be pro-life. I've been called a "hypocrite" on numerous occasions because of my position on the dp (opposed but the state must retain the right to execute convicted murderers). How does one equate the life of an innocent child to that of a convicted killer? I've heard the usual "a life is a life" argument over and over, yet have never heard a legitimate reason why one is not allowed to support the state's right in this matter.
Also, let me ask those adamant anti-death penalty people two questions: how many people were executed by individual states in the US last month? How many were executed in the womb last month?
I think it's very clear who the candidates for the "little guy" truly are in this day and age.
Friday, February 15, 2008
On Monday morning, the ALL received an e-mail from YouTube saying their video had been removed. "After being flagged by members of the YouTube community and reviewed by YouTube staff, the video below has been removed due to its inappropriate nature," the e-mail said.
Michael Hichborn, the director of media relations for ALL, told Catholic News Agency that more than 64 news sources and weblogs covered the banning, including Yahoo News, EWTN, News Busters, and the Inside Catholic blog.
"Once word got out that YouTube had allowed the Planned Parenthood ads our report was based on to remain on their site, while at the same time censoring our report, a flurry of e-mails, blog posts, and complaints from the pro-life community pressured YouTube into reversing their decision," said Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League.
Three days after the video was banned, the American Life League received a second e-mail that read:
"This email is to inform you that a video was recently removed from your account due to a technical malfunction. The issue has since been remedied and we appologize[sic] for any inconvenience or distress this may have caused. The following video(s) have been reinstated and your account has not been penalized."
I'm happy the video was restored. If both the ALL and PP videos were pulled, there would have been no problem. Removing only one and allowing the other smacks of censorship. YouTube came to the correct decision by reinstating the video.
Normally, I would not post articles from WND, but this one is accurate:
Another Florida school district is planning to give its 6th-graders lessons in how to use contraceptives, starting in April, a move that Planned Parenthood is promoting in the state.
WND earlier reported when the St. Lucie school board adopted a sex-ed curriculum that included a field trip to buy condoms, although district officials there decided not to use that lesson after parents objected.
Now officials in Palm Beach County have decided to teach their 6th-graders the use of contraceptives such as condoms, according to a report in the Palm Beach Post.
"Florida is the sixth-highest in the nation for pregnant teens, and that tells us we need to get information to our students," Judy Klinek, who oversees health education for the district, told the newspaper.
Since Florida law requires abstinence-based education, 6th-graders in the past have learned about sexually transmitted diseases and taught how to resist pressure to engage in sexual behavior, the report said.
And get this:
"[The Florida Planned Parenthood abortion providers are] proud to work with Sen. Ted Deutch, D-30, and Rep. Dorothy Bendross-Mindingall, D-109, to introduce the Healthy Teens Act (SB 848, HB 449) during the 2008 Legislative session," the groups' website said. "The Healthy Teens Act protects Florida's teens by requiring that public schools receiving state funding provide comprehensive, medically accurate, and age-appropriate factual information when teaching about sexually transmitted infections." The website specifically listed AIDS and pregnancy among those "sexually transmitted infections."
Now pregnancy is a "transmitted infection"? Only PP and its supporters would consider a child a "disease".
I'm not sure whether to scream or cry at that statement :(
Over the past few decades, it has become fashionable for young people, especially men, to put off marriage until later in life or to avoid it altogether, Kay Hymowitz, a scholar and noted author with the Manhattan Institute, explains in the film.
This is partly because women have become more career-minded and economically successful in recent years and are less inclined to have children as a result, she says. But there is also a certain unwillingness to enter adulthood and all its responsibilities that affects men disproportionately, Hymowitz argues.
"Men have a harder time growing up without women than women do growing up without men," she observes in the film.
No-fault divorce laws and a co-habitation mindset that sidestep the guarantees that come with marriage are identified in the film as major contributing factors behind the looming "demographic winter."
And the key trends undermining natural families are intertwined, studies show.
Statistics cited on the film's Web site, for instance, indicate that almost half of all marriages in the West are broken by divorce. Moreover, social scientists find that the children who grow up with divorced parents are less likely to marry and less likely to have children.
The way to reverse the trend:
To reverse this trend, Phillip Longman, a senior fellow with the New America Foundation, called for a return to traditional, patriarchal family structures during Tuesday's panel discussion.
Longman, who is in the film, is the author of several books on demographics and economics. While it may not be politically correct to speak in terms of patriarchal family models, he said, these structures impose responsibilities on men that they would just as soon avoid.
Longman sees hope for the future among those who hold religious worldviews and among young people especially.
"There is a self-correction side to this," Longman said. "Secularism correlates so strongly with childlessness that there is almost by default a shoring-up of the family with traditional values.
"I think we can see that today. There is evidence of rising aspiration among younger folks today for marriage. I'm talking about people in their 20s. This new millennial generation is so different in so many ways from Generation X," Longman added.
The feminists told women they were doing themselves a disservice by getting married and having children. Younger women today are intelligent enough to see through those lies, and are ignoring them.
I've noticed the vast majority of those in the 18-25 crowd are pro-life. They will be the ones to reverse the childlessness of the secularists.
Yesterday, in a move the was said to have surprised legislators, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said he wants the legislature to "move beyond" the Lord's Prayer, which is recited daily. He has ordered an all-party committee to be formed to "reconsider" prayer in the legislature. Calling the Lord's Prayer "dated," McGuinty, who continues to claim membership in the Catholic Church, said he wants a more "inclusive" practice that better reflects the province's new multicultural "diversity".
"I've asked for a parliamentary committee, with representation from each of the parties and the Speaker's involvement as well, to take a look at how we can move beyond the Lord's Prayer to a broader approach that is more inclusive in nature."
Multicultural? Diversity? Is this his way of saying the Catholic Church is "backwards"?
And then there are these facts:
Yet statistics show that Canada as a whole is still an overwhelmingly Christian nation, with Roman Catholics, Protestants and non-affiliated Christians making up at least 70 per cent of the population. People registering as "no religion" come a distant third at 16 per cent. The rest consist of Muslim at 1.9 per cent, "other and unspecified" with 11.8 per cent. Ontario statistics reflect those of the rest of the country. The 2001 census found that two-thirds of Ontario's population was Christian, despite having been a major landing place for non-Christian immigrants since the 1960's, with the province's Islamic population more than doubling since 1991.
Doesn't sound diverse to me, when 70% of the population is Christian.
It's only a matter of time before Canada is similar to Europe. I pray we don't follow in their footsteps.
February 14 is one of the most romantic days out of the year. For those who celebrate Saint Valentine's Day, red roses and chocolates are usually the most popular gifts given and received. The history behind this day can be traced back to Christian and ancient Roman traditions. It is a day of love.
However, there are others in this country that make it into a holiday that has nothing to do with love. Planned Parenthood has perverted the meaning of love and is using this day to celebrate what it calls "National Condom Day."
Planned Parenthood not only promotes "National Condom Day," but it also uses this time of year to declare a "National Condom Week" and a "National Condom Month." It turns romantic St. Valentine's Day into an entire month pushing its birth control products, abortions and sick, anti-life, anti-family agenda.
One example of this is what Planned Parenthood calls a "must-have fashion accessory." This accessory is a condom. Planned Parenthood celebrates promiscuity by promoting its birth control products and going as far as naming this condom brand, "Proper Attire ™: Required for Entry." How much more repulsive can Planned Parenthood get!
Unfortunately, you can expect such distasteful things from an organization that will do anything to make a profit. In 2006, Planned Parenthood had a total clinic income of over $340 million and a profit of $55 million. It's a business after all - a baby-killing business that lures its customers with sexual products like condoms.
The last sentence in the quote above is all that needs to be said.
The worst part is every single taxpayer in this country is funding this murderous machine.
"Representatives of a group that gives women victimized by abortions a national voice are not surprised by a study showing women who have abortions experience high levels of post-traumatic stress disorder. They say women suffer a myriad of psychological and emotional issues after an abortion.
Officials with the Silent No More Awareness Campaign told LifeNews.com that the study, published in the journal BMC Psychiatry, only reinforces what its members have been saying for years.
“It’s always good when a peer reviewed psychiatric study validates what you already know in your heart to be true,” Georgette Forney said."
"Pioneering the field of fetal pain is Dr. Kanwaljeet (Sunny) Anand. Twenty-five years ago, Dr. Anand was a resident in the neonatal intensive care unit at John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, England. Many of his patients were preterm infants in need of surgery and Dr. Anand soon discovered that infants returning from surgery were in significant distress and he had to spend considerable time stabilizing them.
Getting permission to observe the surgeries, Dr. Anand realized that the problem was likely that these tiny children were given a paralytic to hold them still during surgery but no anesthesia. The assumption was that their nervous system was too immature to register pain. Dr. Anand thought the opposite was true.
Working on that theory, Dr. Anand was able to show through clinical trials that preterm infants did indeed perceive pain and that babies who were operated on without anesthesia had a “massive stress response. ” Babies who were anesthetized during surgery were more stable afterwards and Dr. Anand showed that anesthesia during surgery decreased the mortality rate of these children from 25 percent to 10 percent.
Today, it would be considered barbaric to perform surgery on a newborn or preterm infant without anesthesia.
If it's considered barbaric to operate on them without anesthesia, what do aborion proponents think they feel when the baby is being murdered in the womb?
Thursday, February 14, 2008
House of Representatives
Senator Specter is more pro-choice than Senator Casey. I'm not surprised.
Shouting Out Our Message
Anna is such a mature young lady that I forget she's only 11-years old. She was a joy to have on the March:
Hi, my name is Anna, and I was one of the thousands of people who were at the March for Life rally in Washington, D.C. this year. I just wanted to tell you what I enjoyed the most about going on the trip: being with my friends, praying, going to Mass, visiting the Basilica and Franciscan University. Of course, the best part was being able to shout out a message to all those people who think abortion is “okay” and that don’t know what really is happening. Of all the pro-life signs I read at the March, my favorite one was, “A person is a person no matter how small.” That says it all!
She and all the other young people who attend the march give me great hope we are winning our fight.
"Many husbands and wives marry on Valentine's Day and the PA4Marriage Coalition would like to thank Senator Mike Brubaker and 16 bi-partisan co-sponsors for introducing Senate Bill 1250 which protects marriage in Pennsylvania as the union of a man and a woman and calls for a constitutional amendment in order to preclude the law from being overturned. Constituents can encourage their legislators to vote in support of this bill and let them know that Pennsylvanians want to keep marriage between one man and one woman in our state."
Happy Valentine's Day to all!
Barack Obama May Be Part of God's Plan
"Editor, the Record:
I am not endorsing any candidate, but making a point. What better way can God bless our nation and cleanse our racial sins but by electing Barack Obama for president?
As a conservative, I disagree with Obama's stances, including abortion. But, I am impressed with him and his wife, Michelle, who seems able to represent us as first lady.
Throughout history, God has used many kings or presidents whose destiny was to fullfill God's purposes. Daniel, for example, was placed in a position to influence kings. Regardless who wins the election, God has placed several people like Daniel in government positions today who will also influence our presidents.
As a Christian, I must vote, and regardless who leads I must pray for those heads of government and leadership.
Proverbs 21:1 says; The king's [president's] heart is in the hand of the lord; he directs it wherever he chooses."
I left the woman's name out. It is at the link above.
She disagrees with his position on abortion, yet believes he will be influential and "good" for this country. Never mind the fact he has already lied about who he is (being biracial) and condones the murder of innocents. Being a Christian, this woman is telling us we must support his position.
Let's review Obama's position on the main issue in any election (abortion):
On The Issues:
Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)
Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases. (Aug 2007)
Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)
Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters. (Oct 2006)
Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism. (Oct 2006)
Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill. (Jun 2004)
Protect a woman's right to choose. (May 2004)
Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
From Pro-Choice America:
Sen. Barack Obama submitted the following statement upon NARAL Pro-Choice America's request.
"A woman's ability to decide how many children to have and when, without interference from the government, is one of the most fundamental rights we possess. It is not just an issue of choice, but equality and opportunity for all women.
"I have consistently advocated for reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. I oppose any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling in this case.
"I believe we must work together to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. I support legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventative services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. That is why I co-sponsored the Prevention First Act of 2007, which will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. It will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.
"Finally, I support the enactment and enforcement of laws that help prevent violence, intimidation, and harassment directed at reproductive health providers and their patients."
Sen. Obama received the following scores on NARAL Pro-Choice America's Congressional Record on Choice.
2007: 100 percent
2006: 100 percent
2005: 100 percent
Public Statements about Choice:
A selection of Sen. Obama's public statements on this issue is below.
"Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it's never been more important to protect a woman's right to choose... Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America... I believe in and have supported common-sense solutions like increasing access to affordable birth control to help prevent unintended pregnancies... As President, I will improve access to affordable health care and work to ensure that our teens are getting the information and services they need to stay safe and healthy."
[From a statement by Sen. Obama on the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Full statement is available here: http://www.barackobama.com/2008/01/22/obama_statement_on_35th_annive.php]
"You know, I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy."
[Transcript from Democratic Presidential Debate in South Carolina, MSNBC, April 26, 2007.]
"I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved and wrestled with her conscience when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country."
[Barack Obama, excerpt from The Audacity of Hope published in Time Magazine, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546298,00.html (accessed May 9, 2007).]
"I strongly disagree with today's Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman's medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."
[Statement from Sen. Obama on Supreme Court Decision upholding Federal Abortion Ban, April 18, 2007,http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/04/obama_decision.html (accessed May 4, 2007).]
So, we see he has a rating of 100% by NARAL. No Christian can make the claim to be pro-life and vote for Obama. It is hypocritical and unethical for any individual to take this stance.
"The family of Samuel Golubchuck won a victory on Wednesday when a court issued an injunction preventing Grace General Hospital in Winnipeg from removing Samuel Golubchuk's life support and killing him. His family has been arguing with hospital officials who claim he is to far gone to receive proper medical care.
Grace Hospital will not be allowed to remove the respirator, dehydrate, or starve Golubchuck while the family presents more evidence at a trial."
It's not over yet, as the trial still needs to take place. Keep praying for him and his family!
"A new study published in the journal BMC Psychiatry finds that women who have abortions typically experience high levels of post-traumatic stress disorder. The findings mirror other research reports showing women are more likely to suffer mental health issues following abortions compared with keeping the baby.
The study appeared in the July 2007 issue of the professional psychological publication but it only coming to light now.
The research involved 155 women from South Africa who had abortions and were evaluated one month and three months afterwards.
Approximately 20 percent of the women had post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms just one month later. The results led the authors to note that "high rates of PTSD characterize women who have undergone voluntary pregnancy termination.
Looking at the women three months after the abortion, the number of women experiencing the PTSD symptoms increased 61 percent."
Listen to the radio show I linked yesterday from Dennis Prager. There was a woman who called in to the NPR show, still suffering 32 years later. Instead of offering her counseling, they (the NPR host and guest) told her she had nothing to feel guilty about.
Abortionists do not care about women, only their bottom line.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
"A Winnipeg case currently winding its way to its grim conclusion pits the children of Samuel Golubchuk against doctors at the Salvation Army Grace General Hospital. According to the pleadings, Golubchuk's doctors informed his children that their 84-year-old father is "in the process of dying" and that they intended to hasten the process by removing his ventilation, and if that proved insufficient to kill him quickly, to also remove his feeding tube. In the event that the patient showed discomfort during these procedures, the chief of the hospital's ICU unit stated in his affidavit that he would administer morphine.
Golubchuk is an Orthodox Jew, as are his children. The latter have adamantly opposed his removal from the ventilator and feeding tube, on the grounds that Jewish law expressly forbids any action designed to shorten life, and that if their father could express his wishes, he would oppose the doctors acting to deliberately terminate his life.
In response, the director of the ICU informed Golubchuk's children that neither their father's wishes nor their own are relevant, and he would do whatever he decided was appropriate. Bill Olson, counsel for the ICU director, told the Canadian Broadcasting Company that physicians have the sole right to make decisions about treatment — even if it goes against a patient's religious beliefs — and that "there is no right to a continuation of treatment.""
No right to a continuation of treatment? This is clearly a case of an elderly man who needs a ventilator to help him breath (the machine is not breathing for him), and a feeding tube for nourishment. This is not extreme intervention in the prolonging of a life already gone, but a life that must be sustained to his natural end.
So, these "doctors" wish to kill him by removing his feeding tube, and then administer morphine to kill any pain he may have. Why is that? I would think they're admitting he would suffer extreme and excruciating pain by withholding food and fluids from him.
We cannot allow this to happen again. I'm praying Terri is in heaven interceding on his behalf.
"A California science teacher has been placed on administrative leave after coming under fire following the showing of a pro-life film, The Silent Scream, that details an abortion procedure. First-year teacher Randy Yang showed the movie to five eighth-grade classes at Russell Middle School.
Yang aired the film following completion of work in the chemistry classes he teaches and eighth-grader Xhynah Cabugao told the San Jose Mercury News that some of the students were upset by it."
I would be upset as well. I've watched "The Silent Scream", and it is not appropriate for 8th graders. My almost 14 year old will not be allowed to watch the film until I decide she has the maturity to do so, and even then I want to be present because I know how upsetting it will be.
Actions like these are what hurt our movement. We have to remember that even though the younger generation is by far more pro-life than our own, we need to be careful not to push them away by forcing them to watch something they're not ready to view.
He references the NPR radio show on the 35th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. This show can be found here.
Listen to his callers who try to rationalize when an abortion would be permissible. I've encountered these arguments repeatedly, and have knocked them down in the same exact way Dennis Prager did.
Colmes states in the beginning that Lauren is brain-dead, which is untrue.
Video of Lauren still available here.
Randy may have an order to no longer videotape her, nor to show any video/still pictures of Lauren, but that doesn't mean the rest of us don't. Let's keep the video of Lauren circulating, so more people can see she is not the "human vegetable" as has been described by her mother and the court.
The video in question can be seen here
And what is so offensive about that???? Could it be that PP does not want the truth to be known about who and what they are? Considering PP is paid for by OUR money, we have a right to demand accountability.
Please sign ALL's petition here.
Rosaryfilms also has a video about how Catholics cannot vote for those who support PP:
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
A woman was told that she had suffered a miscarriage only to find that her baby was still alive a month later.
Catherine Kent, 27, and her partner Kevin Gray, 28, were devastated when they were told that their unborn baby had died at eight weeks and she was offered an abortion or pills to shorten the miscarriage.
But Catherine chose to wait for the baby to pass naturally - and a month later she was stunned when a scan revealed that her child was still alive.
The couple were delighted that their baby was still alive but furious that the the hospital, the Sunderland Royal Hospital, had made a mistake that had caused them so much grief.
Catherine said: "What if I had taken the tablets they offered me? They could have left my baby severely disabled, or it could have died?"