One might add to Alcorn's remarks that there is without question considerably more scientific evidence for life beginning at conception than there is for global warming. Yet the president earnestly supports protection of the environment and dismisses the need for protecting the unborn. Is that reasonable?
"If there is uncertainty about when human life begins, the benefit of the doubt should go to preserving life," says Alcorn. "If a hunter is uncertain whether movement in the brush is caused by a person, does this uncertainty lead him to fire or not to fire? If you're driving at night and you think the dark figure ahead on the road may be a child, but it may just be the shadow of a tree, do you drive into it or do you put on the brakes? If we find someone who may be dead or alive, but we're not sure, what is the best policy -- to assume he is alive and try to save him, or to assume he is dead and walk away?"
What faith group or atheists would honestly say go ahead and fire at the unknown object behind the bush, go ahead and drive into the dark and unknown figure on the road, or even walk away from the person that has questionably fallen dead or alive -- even if it's me?
Whether a person of faith or not, the right to life is not something theoretical or hypothetical -- it's personal and fundamental to all...and an unjustifiable or careless breach of that right is universally agreed to be a crime.
Discrimination is another matter considered deplorable by today's standards. Yet the argument that a woman should have the right to an abortion because the fetus resides within her body is an act of discrimination. Alcorn rightly contends that to be inside something is not the same as being part of it. Furthermore, human beings shouldn't be discriminated against on the basis of their residence."One's body does not belong to another's body merely because of proximity. A car is not part of a garage because it is parked there. A loaf of bread is not part of the oven in which it is baked," writes Alcorn. "A person is a person whether she lives in a mansion or an apartment or on the street. She is a person whether she is trapped in a cave, lying in a care center, or residing within her mother."
Such principle, which is clearly accepted by the masses, is certainly not "religion specific." One might even argue that it has nothing to do with religion. Thus abortion is, at the least, an egregious act of death by discrimination based on where an individual lives.
What's more, where is it generally agreed upon by people of every background that an individual's right to choose trumps the protection of innocent life?Alcorn writes: "When I present the pro-life position on campuses, I often begin by saying: 'Yes, I'm pro-choice. That's why I believe every man has the right to rape a woman if that is his choice. After all, it's his body -- and neither you nor I have the right to tell him what to do with it. He's free to choose, and it's none of our business what choice he makes. We have no right to impose our morals on him. Whether I like the choice or not, he should have the freedom to make his own choices.'"
Certainly this position is not "amenable to reason" or even slightly agreed upon by any. Yet the same principle is thoughtlessly accepted when it comes to a woman's so-called "right" to choose an abortion.
Obviously, there is absolutely nothing reasonable or humanitarian about the pro-choice position. Whether godless or a person of faith, by the president's own standard alone the practice of abortion should be summarily rejected and opposed -- not supported and advanced.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
More LIES from Planned Parenthood caught on tape
INDIANAPOLIS, July 20--The youth-led pro-life group Live Action released a new undercover video today showing staff at an Indianapolis Planned Parenthood clinic using manipulative and medically inaccurate counseling to convince a young woman to have an abortion. This is the third undercover video Live Action has released showing abusive counseling practices at Planned Parenthood of Indiana. ... (read more here)
...As Lila said, this is entirely about selling abortions. Abortion is a lucrative business. What we see from Live Action’s undercover videos time and time again is that the “counselors” never offer an alternative to these women. They’re confused, they’re scared, they’re vulnerable, and Planned Parenthood takes advantage of them by lying to them with manipulative and inaccurate information. Why? To make money. Planned Parenthood doesn’t get any money if the woman decides to keep the baby or give it up for adoption. In 2007, Planned Parenthood performed 305,310 abortions… and only referred 4,912 adoptions.
It’s all about the money for them. These “counselors” aren’t there to help women during a time of crisis. They’re salespeople, out to make a sale. Planned Parenthood makes millions of dollars off of abortions, on top of the millions of taxpayer funding they already receive, and why would they want to give that up?This is why pro-life advocates push for mandatory ultrasounds. Women seeking abortions deserve to know the truth, and instead, they’re lied to and manipulated. These Planned Parenthood counselors have goods to sell, after all, and the murders of unborn children must happen no matter what. If women know the truth, they’re not as likely to have the abortion. Lying to women doesn’t matter as long as abortions are being performed — and the femisogynists go right along with it. As I said before,
Meanwhile, feminists (who ardently defend Planned Parenthood and their abortion mill) have been silent about Lila Rose and all that she’s uncovered. Jessica Valenti, for example, seems to have no problem with covering up the sexual abuse of minors, as long as it leads to abortion, the sacred cow of feminism. Planned Parenthood must be defended and the taxpayer funding cannot be revoked. To feminists, “the right the choose” is more important than anything unethical or immoral that an abortionist may do. It can cover all manner of ills.
They self-righteously huff that women know enough to make their own choice, but if they’re lied to and uninformed, how can they really make a choice? If abortion advocates were truly pro-choice, then they’d be outraged over these lies and manipulative tactics. But they aren’t pro-choice, they’re pro-abortion, and abortion clinics like Planned Parenthood are selling the murders of unborn children at any cost.
Forward this story on. These undercover videos will keep coming from Live Action — and how many of them need to be released before people wake up to the evil of Planned Parenthood? (see entire blog entry here)
More lies:
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Kagan played doctor and babies died....
Passing along this information below - from Liberty Counsel:
Any abortion involves the killing of an unborn child, but
the gruesome procedure called partial-birth abortion (PBA)
is grotesquely inhumane. PBA is closely akin to infanticide.
For several years, Supreme Court jurisprudence on partial-
birth abortion relied upon evidence that was manipulated by
Elena Kagan in political service of the Clinton White House.
It led the Court to strike down Nebraska's ban on PBA in
2000 as being unconstitutional. From 2000 until 2007, PBA
was "legal" in America until the Supreme Court eventually
upheld the PBA ban in June 2007.
John Adams said, "Facts are stubborn things."
Fact: Elena Kagan's "handwritten notes" are proof of her
manipulation of expert medical evidence submitted by the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
to the Supreme Court.
Fact: Her revised wording, which was quoted in the Court's
2000 majority opinion, played a key role in the horrendous
procedure continuing until President George W. Bush signed
a new ban into law in November of 2003, which ban was later
upheld in 2007.
Fact: Kagan never divulged to the Court that she was the
one who, in fact, had changed ACOG's official statement.
Fact: Kagan's radical political activism drove her to
manipulate expert testimony and to later avoid admitting
the fact that she had done so.
The Washington Times says Kagan "may be more
responsible than anyone for keeping partial-
birth abortion legal for an extra decade."
This nominee has been described as President Barack Obama's
ideological clone - and fellow academic elitist.
In any other period of American history, Kagan's
hand-written memo would be the "kiss of death"
for her confirmation!
In the final analysis, Elena Kagan's past actions
show that she is a political operative who would
use a seat on the Supreme Court to advance a
radical political agenda.
++Kagan undermines Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Reports are emerging that Elena Kagan has been working in the
shadows to sabotage the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law and "The
Defense of Marriage Act." According to several sources,
Solicitor General Kagan's signals that the government will
not effectively defend DOMA made it possible for Judge Joseph
L. Tauro to strike down parts of DOMA in Massachusetts earlier
this month.
He deemed the state's DOMA unconstitutional by ruling that
the law, which defines marriage as one man and one woman
for federal purposes, has no rational basis - solely because
the Department of Justice refused to give one. The ruling
initially only affects Massachusetts, but is considered to
be a model ruling for other states.
The president of the Massachusetts Family Institute
said, "[The ruling is] another blatant example
of a judge playing legislator!"
And Elena Kagan admitted in written responses to Senators'
questions that she personally participated in a meeting in
which she compromised the United States' position in a case
against the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy (DADT) being brought
by the Log Cabin Republicans.
Elena Kagan's actions as Solicitor General to
undermine the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and
"The Defense of Marriage Act" provide further
evidence that she allows her ideological biases
to trump her clear-cut duty!
Elena Kagan is just not experientially qualified or discerning
enough in judgment to get past her own political views while
rendering judgment as a Supreme Court Justice.
In a special report from Liberty Counsel's Washington, DC,
office, we reveal the true Elena Kagan, "In Her Own Words."
This is Elena Kagan, in her own words, regarding precedence
and the Constitution...
"I think that there are some circumstances in
which looking to the original intent is the
determinative thing in a case and other
circumstances in which it is likely not to
be. And I think, in general, judges should
look to a variety of sources when they interpret
the Constitution, and which take precedence in
a particular case is really a kind of
case-by-case thing."
Kagan's calculated answers during her hearings were a masterful
performance of avoiding clear statements about her true
positions. Yet, the hearings revealed enough of her
political leanings, activist views and questionable
judicial philosophies for our Washington office to
produce a five-page summary written largely in KAGAN'S
OWN WORDS.
This document is a must-read for all Liberty
Counsel team members who are standing in the
gap opposing the nomination of Elena Kagan.
We have been told that many of our supporters
are printing multiple copies and passing it
out in civic groups and other places.
Click here to download your free special report:
"Elena Kagan, In Her Own Words":
http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=29902&CID=312&RID=24323415e
A SUMMARY:
*ANTI-FAMILY: Elena Kagan’s zeal for “homosexual rights” will taint her rulings on pro-family cases.
*ANTI-FAITH: Kagan has expressed hostility toward faith-based organizations and would limit their impact on public policy decisions.
*ANTI-MILITARY: Kagan opposes the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and banned military recruiters from the Harvard Law School campus during a time of war in protest of such “discrimination.”
*ANTI-SOVEREIGNTY: Kagan’s views on transnational law undermine America’s self-rule and national sovereignty.
*ANTI-CONSTITUTION: Kagan has called the Constitution “defective” and shares President Obama’s view that we should have an “evolving” or “living” Constitution, thus marginalizing its ultimate legal authority. She has written about a supposed need to increase the power of the Executive Branch at the expense of legislative bodies.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Forced Abortion Happening in America
Caitlin Bruce is 20 and she has filed a lawsuit against abortion practitioner Alberto Hodari, who has a long history of killing and injuring patients and also faces other forced abortion accusations.
Bruce had the abortion in April 2008 at Hodari's Feminine Health Care Clinic in Flint, Michigan. But she told ABC News she changed her mind at the very last second but was pinned down and had her mouth closed as she tried to protest.
A high school dropout trying to make a life for herself, Bruce is the classic case of a minority girl impregnated by a much-older boyfriend -- and her father persuaded her to have the abortion.
"I was really confused, asking everybody else what I should do. Everybody told me, 'You were too young,'" she told ABC. "What I really wanted to hear was, 'We'll help you out.'"
On the table for the abortion, Bruce felt the first instrument go inside her and she asked Hodari to stop, but he and his assistants held her down.
"He had a real tight grip over my mouth, but I was screaming .. and trying to pull my legs together," she said.
She said Hodari appeared to give up and told her she could go home and as soon as she relaxed, Bruce tells ABC News Hodari completed the abortion......
Thursday, April 1, 2010
More Links with Planned Parenthood and Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation
"On its website, SGK acknowledges that childbearing protects women from breast cancer, and the more children a mother bears and the younger she begins bearing them the better. SGK also acknowledges breast-feeding protects against breast cancer.
But abortion blocks all those preventative measures.
Only last week a new study got lots of press that found breast cancer survivors lower their risk of dying by 42 percent simply by getting pregnant.
But abortion blocks that protection.
SGK acknowledges never having children increases a woman's risk of getting breast cancer, and delaying childbearing, particularly after age 35, also increases the risk.
And abortion increases the risk of both those risks.
Logic.
It would seem logical that with all the controversy surrounding abortion's role in breast cancer, SGK would simply back away from involvement with it in any way if wanting to stay true to its mission "to save lives and end breast cancer forever." ...
...But SGK is not backing away. Between 2003 and 2008, SGK gave $3 million to Planned Parenthood. In Fiscal Year 2008 alone, Planned Parenthood got $805,000 from SGK. ....
Three days ago a diligent pro-lifer in Washington state discovered on Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest's IRS 990 forms that it has held a 12.5 percent share in Metro Centre, a mall in Peoria, Ill., since 2006.
PPGNW is Washington's largest abortion provider. (It is also currently under investigation for Medicaid fraud.)
Metro Centre is owned by Eric Brinker.
Eric Brinker is the son of Nancy Goodman Brinker, the founder of SGK. Eric also sits on SGK's board. ............"
read entire article by Jill Stanek here
Friday, March 26, 2010
There are some things Congress does not the authority to do!
* Abortion coverage Americans don't want
* Exorbitant costs Americans don't want
* Mandatory participation Americans don't want
* New federal bureaucracies Americans don't want
* A vast expansion of IRS power Americans don't want
Our Constitution is being subverted right before our eyes.
Never before has the will of the people been so completely ignored and marginalized. Obamacare is unconstitutional! If Congress has the power to FORCE each person to have health insurance, then individual liberty is totally meaningless....
The bill that passed the House of Representatives on Sunday night is unconstitutional because:
1) Congress has NO authority to force every American to carry insurance coverage, and,
2) Congress has NO authority to fine employers whose policies do not have the mandated coverage.
There are some things Congress does not the authority to do!!! And the threat to our liberty posed by ObamaCare goes FAR beyond healthcare. If Congress can get away with this expansive power grab, then individual liberty and state sovereignty will soon vanish.
to join Liberty Actions statement of support - click here
"As a concerned citizen, I am signing this official statement to demonstrate my support of litigation challenging the Constitutionality of ObamaCare as passed by the 111th Congress. Specifically, I believe that government-mandated requirements for individuals to obtain health insurance are unconstitutional. Congress is not granted the power to force Americans to comply with such a mandate. Likewise, I believe requirements that employers provide such insurance coverage are also unconstitutional.
If Congress had the power to force Americans to have health insurance, then individual liberty would be overpowered and thus become meaningless. No matter what certain elected officials may desire, there are some things Congress simply cannot do under our Constitution. I do not want the federal government or any group of bureaucrats policing my private medical decisions. The legislation that passed Congress on March 21, 2010, popularly known as the ObamaCare healthcare reform bill, contains such a “mandate,” and is therefore a threat to individual liberty and the sovereignty of the States. I therefore support legal action to stop ObamaCare."
The American People Will Not Allow a Corrupt Machine to Dictate Their Future
On the floor Sunday night, Congressman John Boehner aptly summarized the consequences of voting for this bill:
"If we pass this bill, there will be no turning back. It will be the last straw for the American people. And in a democracy, you can only ignore the will of the people for so long and get away with it. And if we defy the will of our fellow citizens and pass this bill, we are going to be held to account by those who have placed us in their trust."
2010 and 2012 will be among the most important elections in American history.
These elections will allow us to save America from a leftwing machine of unparalleled corruption, arrogance, and cynicism.
The American people will not allow a corrupt machine to dictate their future.
Together we will pledge to repeal this bill and start over on meaningful, effective, healthcare reform.
Together we will prove that this will not stand.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Morally Stunted Advice on "Dealing With An Unwanted Pregnancy"
The headline on the advice column was "Dealing With An Unwanted Pregnancy." It appeared at askmen.com, an online "men's magazine." The column evidently embarrassed a publication that, on first blush, you wouldn't think would be embarrassed by much. It's no longer available at the website.
Written by Isabella Snow ("Sex Education Correspondent"), the pep talk is about what to do if your lady friend is pregnant, is balking at an abortion, and while you want the kid to end, you don't necessarily want the "relationship" to end. I won't but could go on at length about what is a twice-over, deeply manipulative column.
By that I mean the advice is intended to offer pointers on how to get around the fact that for "some women, getting pregnant can start clocks ticking and make them suddenly want to be mothers, despite previous agreements") but not at the expense of making the guy (who is coaxing her into having an abortion) feel like he has not been unsupportive.
In a series of "Prenatal prep[s]," Snow instructs her audience (presumably virtually all of whom are men) to let the woman talk freely (this "shows that you actually value her feelings"); to not call the "unwanted pregnancy" an "it" ("too many times, and she's going to start feeling like she needs to defend 'it' from you"); to sit together on the sofa while you're having "this conversion" to simulate intimacy (and reduce "eye contact"); to be careful with "word choice" ("pregnant women tend to feel like they're carrying someone, as opposed to something, even if she is just a month or so pregnant"); to not come across "as whiny" ("These changes are significant, but you don't want to make it sound like you'll be more affected than she will"); to give good reasons for your position (ask her "Who's going to care for the baby while you're working? Will you have to move to a new home? Will you have to sell your Harley and get a station wagon?"), etc., etc., etc.
And when it's all this is done-- if after all the "Prenatal preps"-- "your woman decides to have the baby anyway, this does not mean you're required to get married or move in together." You probably want to consider forking over some money, but "This was her decision, not yours, and the bulk of the responsibility is now hers."
But, wait, Ms. Snow offers one last gambit. "Take a moment to spell this out for her when she gives you the final decision; it may just sway her over to your side."
So after carefully considering her feelings, your tone, your body language, how you sit, and the like--the high road, so to speak-- if she doesn't see things your way, there's always your trump card--the threat to effectively abandon her.
Yuck!
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
Dignity
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
"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"?
Sunday, August 30, 2009
abortion arguements
Below are two prolife songs by Phil Keaggy. WARNING!! Both contain pictures of aborted babies
GRAPHIC!
Not for little eyes or for the faint of heart.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
More Premature Babies Surviving, Living Longer
http://www.lifenews.com/int1222.html
Stockholm, Sweden (LifeNews.com) -- Researchers in Sweden have published a new study showing survival chances have greatly improved for premature babies. The news comes at a time when the United States is grappling with the murder of an abortion practitioner who ended the lives of these babies in late-term abortions.
Dr. Karel Marsal of Lund University Hospital and colleagues published their findings in the latest issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
They found that approximately 70 percent of the babies born alive between 22 and 26 weeks gestation in Sweden now survive past the age of one thanks to advances in modern medicine.
On the down side, the authors say more must be done because half of the babies who survived experienced serious health problems.
The researchers examined the birth of all infants born before 27 weeks gestation in Sweden from 2004-2007 and found the overall perinatal mortality or death rate was 45%. That means 55 percent of the 1,011 babies survived who were born at or before that stage of pregnancy.
Of those 55 percent of babies who survived, 70 percent were still alive at the end of one year which is a higher figure than in previous studies.
The study confirmed earlier research showing survival rates increase as the pregnancy moves further along.
It found 10 percent of babies born at 22 weeks survived to one year compared with 53% of those born at 23 weeks and 85% of those born at 26 weeks into the pregnancy. The later the birth in pregnancy the more likely the baby survived without any major illness and half of those born at 26 weeks had no serious health issues.
The study also found babies born at hospitals with the best intensive care facilities had the highest survival odds.
"Certainly, at 22 weeks the chance of surviving is very small, but at 23 weeks the results are much better," Marsal said in the study. "But gestational age alone is not enough to judge prognosis."
The survival of premature babies is an important research topic if only because the rate of premature births has increased over the years.
Some of the increase has been brought on because of abortion.
Last year, Canadian researcher Brent Rooney and colleagues published a report in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons showing African-American women are at risk for higher rates of premature and extremely premature birth because they tend to have abortions at higher rates than women of other ethnicity.
According to the new research paper, black women are three times more likely to have an early pre-term birth before 32 weeks gestation and four times more likely to have an extremely pre-term birth before 28 weeks gestation in comparison with women of other ethnic groups.
While black women represent 12.5% of American females they have 38.2% of all abortions, according to the authors.
In July 2006, a report from a committee of the National Academies of Science finds that a first-trimester abortion, the most common abortion procedure, is linked to an increasing risk of premature birth.
In the report is a list of "immutable medical risk factors associated with preterm birth" and "prior first-trimester abortion" is listed third among other risk factors that increase the risk of having a subsequent premature birth.
The IOM reported that premature births before 37 weeks gestation represent 12.5 percent of all U.S. births, a 30% increase since 1981. Abortion became legally accessible in 1973 and the number of abortions peaked in the early 1980s.
Tiny Baby Survives
"Pop Can" Miracle Baby Set to Go Home - Born at 12.5 Ounces
By Patrick B. Craine
PITTSBURGH, June 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – On March 12, parents Brittany Rideout and Adam Bouchat welcomed their beautiful and extraordinarily tiny little girl, Taylor Rideout, at Magee-Women’s Hospital of UPMC in Pittsburgh. Born at 26 weeks gestation, Taylor was a mere 12.5 ounces or 350 grams, about the size of a pop can.
Ms. Rideout suffers from lupus, and about six weeks into the pregnancy she underwent two strokes and two seizures, says Mr. Bouchat in a video on the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s website. She was hospitalized for a month. Then, two months after she was released, she was diagnosed with pre-eclampsia and HELLP syndrome. “Her blood pressure was sky-high and her liver was failing,” said Mr. Bouchat.
Faced with the possibility of death for both mother and child, they chose to deliver baby Taylor at 26 weeks. According to Taylor’s doctor, Dr. Jennifer Kloesz, the smallest babies they had delivered before Taylor were about 500 grams, but these babies were only 24 weeks gestation. Dr. Kloesz said that Taylor was about half the size of a normal 26-week baby.
“The reason that she’s still here and is going to survive and be discharged is that she was 26 weeks,” Dr. Kloesz said. “Her organ systems had developed more like a 26-weeker so that she was able to respond to our resuscitation.”
Dr. Kloesz said that if Taylor had not been gestated so long, they might not have made the attempt. Referring to her being 26 weeks, she said, “That’s kinda the main thing that makes her so different and why it was worth giving it a try, with her parents’ wishes,” continues Dr. Kloesz.
But Ms. Rideout urges parents facing similar difficulties never to give up, reports WXPI in Pittsburgh. “I would tell them,” she said, “don't give up on their child if they're born small or have a disease or anything. There's a God in this world, and if it's meant to be, it will be.”
Taylor is now 83 days old, and weighs 3 pounds. She has been transferred into a transitional unit for a couple weeks in preparation for leaving the hospital.
Her parents, of course, are overjoyed. “I was scared that she wasn’t going to make it, but she made it, so it’s great,” said Ms. Rideout.
They are looking forward to bringing her home, but are grateful for the care she has received. “We’re just really looking forward to the time we can bring her home. But we’re just so thankful that she’s here, though, and just getting the care and attention. So even if we can’t have her home, we feel safe that she’s here,” said Mr. Bouchat.
“Despite all she’s been through, she seems to be a very happy person,” he said.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Abortion in Health Care...
White House unveiled its new Reality Check webpage Monday morning, attempting to realign facts in its favor about the proposed nationalized health care plan.(from Jill Stanek)
.....noticeably missing was any mention of the A-word, even though the topic has taken center stage in the national debate....
But there was a time when Obama was quite clear about his intention to include abortion in taxpayer financed health care as well as force private insurance coverage.
On July 17, 2007, Obama was speaking to Planned Parenthood supporters, and Bryan Howard, CEO of Planned Parenthood AZ, asked a question on health care (abortionspeak translation: "reproductive healthcare" means "abortion"):
Could you talk - give us some specifics about how reproductive health care ... is going to fit into and be a part of primary care for women in your health care reform plans and how Planned Parenthood ... will continue to be a part of the health care safety net for women and families across the country?
Obama responded quite clearly he planned for abortion not only to be part of taxpayer-funded health care but also forcibly covered by private insurers. He added he thought it "important" for the United States' largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, to be part of his plan.
.....The reason Obama's new Reality Check website did not attempt to dispute that abortion is a part of Obama's health care plan is because it really is "at the center and at the heart of the plan," as he honestly stated only two years ago.
- A cornerstone of the Freedom of Choice Act will be a direct mandate under the new healthcare plan, forcing Americans to subsidize abortions.
- Under the healthcare plan, virtually every American will eventually be in a plan that includes abortion by requiring individuals to buy health insurance that meets minimum benefits standards determined by unelected government bureaucrats.
- If the law does not clearly state that abortion is excluded, abortion automatically becomes a minimum required benefit.
- It is extremely unfortunate that at a time when American taxpayers are trying to stretch their dollar as far as possible as their jobs are lost, homes are foreclosed, food prices rise and the economy continues to decline, President Obama and abortion industry allies in Congress would mandate taxpayer funding of abortion.
- President Obama and liberals in Congress say they want health care reform, but they are using health reform as a way to ram through taxpayer funded abortion. Pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL have admitted they hope to mandate "access" to abortion for "all women" through national health care reform legislation.
- Abortion is not healthcare, as the pro-abortion organizations would like Americans to believe, and it should not be mandated under any health insurance plan, especially one that Americans will be forced to subsidize.
- Specific language must be written into the healthcare bill that excludes taxpayer funds from paying for abortions.
FACT: The abortion mandate is very real. The absence of the word abortion is very reason why the proposed legislation will mandate abortion on virtually every American health care plan. For example, look no further than the federal Medicaid statute which does not mention the word abortion, yet Medicaid funded as many as 300,000 abortions per year prior to enactment of the Hyde amendment.
MYTH #2: The Obama administration doesn’t want to change the status quo with regard to abortion. They will not allow an abortion mandate.
FACT: The President himself said that reproductive care is at the heart of his health care plan.1 And Hilary Clinton has confirmed that the administration considers abortion to be part of reproductive health. More recently Office of Budget and Management Chief Peter Orszag told "FOX News Sunday" on July 19, 2009 that it is not "prepared to rule [taxpayer funded abortion] out" of the healthcare legislation.2
MYTH #3: The courts can’t mandate abortion coverage if abortion isn’t even written into the health bill.
FACT: In the mid-1990s the Hyde amendment was adjusted to no longer ban Medicaid abortion funding in cases of rape and incest abortion. Even though the Medicaid statute didn’t refer directly to abortion, they reverted to the assumed mandate that abortion would be covered. States that tried to refuse to pay for rape and incest abortions, were overruled by courts that said because abortion falls under broad categories of care in the Medicaid statute, states must fund abortion even if it violates their individual state law.
MYTH #4: The so-called "Hyde Amendment" restricts federal funds from paying for abortions
through Medicaid and applies in the healthcare bill.
FACT: Actually the health care overhaul bypasses the Hyde amendment. But even if it didn’t, we cannot be fooled by this pro-abortion “two-step.” If the Hyde amendment did apply it would still be subject to annual re-approval. Significant portions of the proposed legislation are not subject to the Hyde amendment.
MYTH #5: Proposed legislation maintains the status quo, but pro-life amendments go further than current law.
FACT: Permanent abortion funding bans are contained in other health care laws including Department of Defense health care coverage and the Children’s Health Insurance Plan. If Representatives and Senators oppose taxpayer funding for abortion or plans that cover abortion,
it only follows that such an explicit provision must be contained in the healthcare bill.
(info from: http://www.stoptheabortionmandate.com)
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Health Care Fact Check
There is no place for outlandish rumor or outrageous rhetoric in the debate for the affordable and accessible health care reform we all want.
Below are some facts that will help you counter the dishonest rhetoric Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and liberal special interest groups are disseminating in their attempt to silence dissent:
- Rhetoric: President Obama Promises Americans Can Keep Their Current Health Care Coverage. "You know, the interesting thing is we've actually been very clear on what we want. I've said I want to make sure if you have health care you are going to keep it..." (PBS's "The Newshour With Jim Lehrer," 7/20/09)
- FACT: Analysis Shows Over 88 Million People To Lose Current Insurance Under Government Health Care Takeover. "Under current law, there will be about 158.1 million people who are covered under an employer plan as workers, dependents or early retirees in 2011. If the act were fully implemented in that year, about 88.1 million workers would shift from private employer insurance to the public plan." (John Shelis, Vice President, Lewin Group, "Analysis Of The July 15 Draft Of The American Affordable Health Choices Act Of 2009," 7/17/09)
- Rhetoric: President Obama Pledges Americans Can Keep Their Doctor. "If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won't have to do a thing. You keep your plan. You keep your doctor...We're not going to mess with it." (President Barack Obama, Remarks At White House Press Conference, The White House, 6/23/09)
- FACT: Mayo Clinic Says Government-Run Health Care Will Force Doctors To Drop Patients. '[L]awmakers are on track to approve across-the-board federal payment reductions of $155 billion over 10 years for hospitals ... Mayo and similar health systems object to the sweeping cuts. 'Across-the-board cuts will be harmful to everyone and we think it is particularly bad to penalize the high-value organizations,' said Jeff Korsmo, executive director of the Mayo Clinic Health Policy Center. 'We will have to violate our values in order to stay in business and reduce our access to government patients.'" (Phil Galewitz, "'Model' Health Systems Press Case For Medicare Fix In Reform," Kaiser Health News, 7/20/09)
- Rhetoric: President Obama Promises No Additional Taxes On Middle Class. "What I've said is, and I have stuck to this point, I don't want to see additional tax burdens on people making $250,000 a year or less." (NBC's "Today Show," 7/21/09)
- FACT: Democrats' Plan Imposes 2.5% Tax On Uninsured Individuals. "The penalty assessed on people who would be subject to the mandate but did not obtain insurance would equal 2.5 percent of the difference between their adjusted gross income (modified to include tax-exempt interest and certain other sources of income) and the tax filing threshold ..." (Douglas W. Elmendorf, "Preliminary Analysis Of The Insurance Coverage Specifications Provided By The House Tri-Committee Group," Letter To Chairman Rangel, 7/17/09)
The Republicans want an honest and open debate about how to reform health care, but it is the Democrats who do not want to have a legitimate discussion on the issues. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their liberal special interest cronies are resorting to calling concerned citizens who have questions about their health care schemes "astroturf," "un-American," and even "political terrorists."
One White House aide went so far to say "if you get hit, we will punch back
twice as hard" when coaching Senate Democrats on the ways of "Chicago land politics."
It's time for the President to practice what he preached on the campaign trail and respect all voices in the health care debate.
"Democrats, bloodied over their attempt to force health care 'reform' on Americans, are looking more unreasonable and hysterical by the day. This isn't healthy for the republic. Their increasing anxiety and fear of failure are typified in the words of the leader of their party, who wants Republicans to keep their mouths shut while he 'fixes' health care. 'I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking,' the president said Thursday at a political rally in Virginia. 'I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.' So much for the promises of bipartisan lawmaking. So much for open discussion. So much for understanding who really caused the 'mess' in the first place. Like Al Gore claiming the debate about global warming is over, the White House simply wants to shut down dialogue over who controls more than one-seventh of the economy. ... Truth is, there's nothing more American than revolting against heavy-handed authority, be it a long train of abuses from a king or the lawmaking of elected officials with strong authoritarian urges. This is a nation founded on independence, and there is a large portion of it that wants to retain that priceless heritage. This seems to confuse some lawmakers. ... Voters' deep anger is justifiable. They have every right to disrupt and shout down public figures who, as the protesters can be heard chanting, work for them. At dispute is not a mere difference of opinion that can and should be discussed in a civil manner, but a fundamental question of who is in charge of peoples' lives. We are not advocating violence, though coercive government is at its core violent as the state is required to resort to force to ensure that its directives aren't violated. But we do support our fellow citizens' right to express their rage at an injustice, particularly if it makes lawmakers uncomfortable. Shouldn't Americans bristle when their independence is threatened, when a federal official, in this case White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, says party leaders 'will punch back twice as hard' when voters merely show their displeasure? The freedom the protesters are defending can sometimes be messy and imperfect. A lack of freedom, however, is eternally oppressive. It is an unrelenting prison that poisons the human spirit, even when cloaked in allegedly humane programs such as government-run health care." --Investors' Business Daily
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Right Wing Extremist Mobs????
Here is the video of a new Democrat National Committee (DNC) ad attacking citizens who are opposing a Government-takeover of Health Care as an "angry mob" comprised of "right-wing extremists of the Republican base."
Vision America Action President Dr. Rick Scarborough declared: "According to the president and DNC, if you're a concerned citizen who asks his Congressman tough questions at a Town Hall Meeting, you're a right-wing extremist. If you're a senior worried about not being able to get hip-replacement surgery if the president's plan is adopted, you're a right-wing extremist. If you wonder how a government that can't deliver the mail on time is going to manage an industry which constitutes one-sixth of our economy, you are a right-wing extremist. This is truly beneath contempt."
"Obama is calling a plurality of Americans 'right-wing extremists.' The message of the DNC/Obama ad is simple and straightforward: Don't ask questions, Don't read the fine print. Don't peacefully protest. Just blindly support the president's attempted takeover of health care," Scarborough observed.
"Far from intimidating us, this character-assassination encourages us to re-double our efforts to defeat Obama-Care!"
Why shouldn't we be concerned when Obama is lying to us. Obama promises that people who are happy with their current health insurance can keep it. That's a claim contradicted by FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan consumer advocacy group at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center. AND IN HIS OWN WORDS stated that His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance:
Obama explains that his plans for health care reform would eventually lead to the elimination of private health insurance companies in favor of a single-payer system:
"I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process, I can envision in a decade out, or fifteen years out, or twenty years out," Obama says in a 2007 interview with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The video montage then follows with a 2003 speech given by Obama at an AFL-CIO conference on "Civil, Human, and Women's Rights" in which he says, "I am a proponent of single-payer universal health care plans."
The uncut context of Obama's 2003 address to the AFL-CIO labor union posted on Breitbart.tv. In that address Obama states clearly, "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. ...
"A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House."
More on the protest and the "angry mobs" who are "well dressed":
Pelosi's visit to Denver was met by anti-government protesters as well as government astroturfers. El Marco graphically illustrates exactly what astroturfing is and how it is intended to stifle dissent in America. This is an outstanding report. Excellent pictures and coverage to show what is actually happening.
Click the link below to see all the pictures and coverage
Here's another link to see actual videos of left-wing extremists that are disrupting congressional town-hall meetings with venomous attacks on anyone who voices their objections to Barack Obama's plans to socialize American health care.
http://www.rightmarch.com/obamacare-townhall.htm
How does the mainstream media report the townhall meetings? "Angry old white folks are storming into town halls all across the country spewing lies about health care reform. Let me set the record straight early on: These folks [are] dumber than Joe the Plumber." --MSNBC's Ed Schultz
Posts
