Tuesday, October 27, 2009

No Government Funded Abortions! Period.

America is at a spiritual and moral crossroads as President Obama and the leaders of Congress are pushing for taxpayer funded abortions as a part of health care reform. If this current proposed legislation becomes law...

...your tax dollars will be used to pay for the killing of innocent children and the diminishing of women through abortion.

Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi is planning to try to ram the massive health care bill (H.R. 3200) through the U.S. House of Representatives on short notice, without allowing consideration of a critical pro-life amendment. TELEPHONE the office of your representative in the U.S. House of Representatives with a clear and firm message urging a NO vote on the no-amendment procedure (which is called "the rule") on H.R. 3200. If you've already called, it is essential that you call again. When you are done, be sure to alert your pro-life friends.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) told CNSNews.com that President Barack Obama told him in a telephone conversation that when he said in his Sept. 9 speech to a joint session of Congress that “under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions” he was not talking about the actual bill drafted in the House but about the president’s own health care plan—which has never been written.

“I don’t know if it is a game of semantics or what,” Stupak said of Obama’s nationally televised declaration to Congress that the health-care plan will not allow federal funding of abortion.

Both the House and Senate versions of the health-care bill permit federal funds to pay for insurance plans that cover abortions.

The Associated Press acknowledges what pro-life groups have been saying all along -- that the Hyde amendment, which stops abortion funding in Medicaid, doesn't apply to these new health care bills.

"Currently a law called the Hyde amendment bars federal funding for abortion - except in cases of rape and incest or if the mother's life would be endangered - and applies those restrictions to Medicaid," AP writer Erica Werner reports. "Separate laws apply the restrictions to the federal employee health plan and military and other programs."

"But the Democrats' health overhaul bill would create a new stream of federal funding not covered by the restrictions," AP confirms.

"In a story transmitted today (October 23), the Associated Press accurately reported that the House Democratic leadership currently does not intend to allow the House to vote on an amendment sponsored by Congressmen Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) and Joseph Pitts (R-Pa.), and supported by NRLC, which would, as the AP reported, "include the Hyde amendment restrictions in the health overhaul bill."

The AP reported: "Such an amendment would be almost certain to prevail . . . So Democratic leaders won't let Stupak offer it. Instead, it appears they may have to take the risk of letting Stupak try to block action on the underlying bill, which he intends to do by assembling 'no' votes on a procedural measure [the "rule"] that needs to pass before debate can begin."

As approved by Democratic-controlled House committees, H.R. 3200 contains at least two major components that implicate abortion policy. It creates a new program of premium subsidies for health insurance. The AP story discusses pro-life objections to allowing those subsidies to go to private plans that cover elective abortions. Oddly, however, the AP story does not mention the other major abortion-related controversy generated by the bill, which centers on the proposed "public plan."

NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson commented: "The bill explicitly authorizes the public plan, a federal agency program, to pay for elective abortions. Democratic leaders, including President Obama, have claimed that no federal funds would be used to pay for abortions, but this is a deception, because the public plan will be a federal agency program that can spend only federal funds. The federal government would pay abortion providers for performing elective abortions -- a sharp break from decades of federal policy."

"The public plan problem and the premium-subsidy problem are really separate and distinct -- the bill would need to be amended to get abortion out of the federal government plan, even if the premium subsidy program did not exist," Johnson said. "Recent polls show strong public opposition to government funding of abortion and abortion coverage."

NRLC has obtained and today makes publicly available
a memorandum prepared for a Member of Congress by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), which confirms all of the monies spent by the public plan would be federal funds (just as NRLC has previously documented) -- implicitly refuting the claim by Democratic leaders and President Obama that no "federal funds" would be used to pay for abortions". --NRLC

The only thing that stands in their way... the only thing that can stop them... the only thing that can make them abandon their plots and plans is hearing the righteous outage of patriotic Americans like you.

If they can't pass their so-called health care reform by stealth... if they realize they can't force it down your throat without suffering political repercussions for their actions... they will stop... just as they did only two short years ago, when outraged Americans said no to amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.

Monday, October 26, 2009


Here are some scenes from Law and Order --last Friday's program--"Dignity"--it allowed the pro-life position to be presented in full and through the mouths not only of self-identified pro-lifers but also through the agonizing reflections of members of the "Law & Order" cast.

"The case falls apart for Cutter due to Rubirosa and testimony of nurse who saw abortion doctor kill a born baby."

Saturday, October 24, 2009

The Moral Incoherence of Abortion

I read the following from NRLC newsletter. It is really hard for me to understand the thoughts of abortionists and how they justify killing the innocent unborn humans. Lisa Harris - an abortionist offers her insights, however her insights/thoughts are indeed morally incoherent and gut-wrenching....

"Doing second trimester abortion is clinical care at the boundary between life and death and in the context of political and social controversy, and, likewise, commitment."
-- Abortionist Lisa Harris

As a woman who dismembered huge unborn babies at the very same time she was pregnant, Lisa Harris' account offers tragic insights into the human mind, heart, and soul....

No dummy, Harris understands that sawing off hands and arms–especially later in pregnancy–is tough sledding for anyone whose conscience has not been amputated. So Harris' gambit is to first frankly deal with such issues as "personal and psychological considerations" as well as the undeniable violence of abortion (and its seeming incompatibility with what she sees as an essentially non-violent feminist movement). Then she offers "answers" that are not only morally incoherent and circular but also evade the very gut-wrenching red-flags Harris told the reader she would confront.

She accomplishes the latter by trying to create group solidarity by offering to transport them to a kind of Land of Oz for death peddlers, otherwise known as the "middle ground." Needless to say that middle ground is not to distinguish "acceptable" from "unacceptable" abortions, but to explain how "owning" the violence, and the discomfort, and the nightmares makes killing kids at any stage of development not only acceptable but "rewarding."

Let me offer two long quotes. Harris begins with a category she calls "Visual and visceral differences" between first and second trimester abortions.

"When I was a little over 18 weeks pregnant with my now pre-school child, I did a second trimester abortion for a patient who was also a little over 18 weeks pregnant. As I reviewed her chart I realized that I was more interested than usual in seeing the fetal parts when I was done, since they would so closely resemble those of my own fetus. I went about doing the procedure as usual.... I used electrical suction to remove the amniotic fluid, picked up my forceps and began to remove the fetus in parts, as I always did. I felt lucky that this one was already in the breech position – it would make grasping small parts (legs and arms) a little easier. With my first pass of the forceps, I grasped an extremity and began to pull it down. I could see a small foot hanging from the teeth of my forceps. With a quick tug, I separated the leg. Precisely at that moment, I felt a kick – a fluttery "thump, thump" in my own uterus. It was one of the first times I felt fetal movement. There was a leg and foot in my forceps, and a "thump, thump" in my abdomen. Instantly, tears were streaming from my eyes – without me – meaning my conscious brain - even being aware of what was going on. I felt as if my response had come entirely from my body, bypassing my usual cognitive processing completely. A message seemed to travel from my hand and my uterus to my tear ducts. It was an overwhelming feeling – a brutally visceral response – heartfelt and unmediated by my training or my feminist pro-choice politics. It was one of the more raw moments in my life."

Raw, indeed, and as eloquent a passage as you could imagine. I felt like I was there in the room with her. Then there is this, which fell under the category "Violence."

"The last patient I saw one day was 23 weeks pregnant. I performed an uncomplicated D&E procedure. Dutifully, I went through the task of reassembling the fetal parts in the metal tray. It is an odd ritual that abortion providers perform - required as a clinical safety measure to ensure that nothing is left behind in the uterus to cause a complication - but it also permits us in an odd way to pay respect to the fetus (feelings of awe are not uncommon when looking at miniature fingers and fingernails, heart, intestines, kidneys, adrenal glands), even as we simultaneously have complete disregard for it. Then I rushed upstairs to take overnight call on labour and delivery. The first patient that came in was prematurely delivering at 23-24 weeks. As her exact gestational age was in question, the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) team resuscitated the premature newborn and brought it to the NICU. Later, along with the distraught parents, I watched the neonate on the ventilator. I thought to myself how bizarre it was that I could have legally dismembered this fetus-now-newborn if it were inside its mother's uterus - but that the same kind of violence against it now would be illegal, and unspeakable."

....How someone--anyone--could go from writing that "tears were streaming from my eyes" when her own unborn baby kicked at the same time she was snuffing out the life of another unborn baby to bragging about lobbying her own abortion clinic to move the outer edge of their "practice" from 14 weeks to "inching up to 22 weeks"?

Friday, October 9, 2009

taking a break...

I've had to take a break from blogging due lack of time from the birth of a beautiful new baby & also due to homeschooling my other four kiddos. Will be blogging again after everything settles....

What's the difference between this adorable little angel who God has sent to our home and babies that are killed in legal abortion???

--- time is all (actually about 13 weeks since our baby was a little over 36 weeks & a baby at 23 weeks is considered a "nonhuman" with no rights and it is legal to kill him/her.)

A baby is a baby no matter how small. We are all God's children and all life is of value.

Life is Precious! Choose life!!

"May (they) ... be moved to let God do great things in their lives and to work and pray that the killing of innocent children by abortion -- which is the greatest threat to world peace -- be stopped completely and forever, for through abortion mothers destroy the image and likeness of God." - Mother Teresa

“the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing - direct murder by the mother herself." - Mother Teresa