Tuesday, September 23, 2014

So Tragic


“Artist” performs the story of her abortion: “I think She was a She”

By Dave Andrusko
Leyla Josephine

So…how far can the logic of “I am not ashamed of my abortion” go? NRL News Today has covered a plethora of stratagems, including killing your kid and uploading the video of his/her final minutes to the Internet. More than one reader wrote back that this is so obscene it can aptly be described as pornographic.
What else? Entire movies joking about offing your kid—“Obvious Child”—indeed turning the child’s death into a rite of passage in which the “obvious child” (the “too-young-to-be-a-mother” mother) becomes a more caring, adult-like figure by dispatching the bothersome product of conception to the great waste pile in the sky.

So not being ashamed of your abortion can also be defined as being so child-like that the woman cannot be held responsible for her behavior. (Not, as the director and lead actress of this “romantic comedy” would hasten to add, that there is anything to be “responsible” for in an abortion.)
There are many others but (thanks to Alanna Vagianos of the Huffington Post) we are alerted that the not being ashamed mantra may have reached reductio ad absurdum status. Last week Vagianos wrote about somebody by the name of Leyla Josephine, described as a “spoken word and performance artist” based in Glasgow, Scotland.

If you wish you can listen and watch Josephine. Be forewarned there are a couple of obligatory cuss words.
What can we say?

Her performance is not just the same tedious self-congratulatory, I sure am proud anthem that we read or, in this case, hear—although it is certainly is that. It is instead a “slam poem,” titled, “I think She was a She,” in which Josephine “recounts the abortion she had as a teenager and the cultural shame she’s been constantly confronted with ever since,” according to Vagianos.
Josephine rhythms about all the wonderful things her kid—whom she in convinced in the first verse is a girl only to take it back later—would have become. Everything Josephine was and much more, including being tougher. And, Josephine tells us, she would have been the kind of mother who “protect[ed] her from the dark.”
And “She could have been born.” Pause. “I would have made sure that there was space on the walls to measure her height as she grew.”
Problem is she came “at the wrong time.”
Just after she tells us the first of multiple times that “I am not ashamed,” Josephine makes one of the most remarkable pro-abortion statements in the long, self-exculpatory history of justifications for violence. Read carefully:
“But I would have supported her right to choose, to choose a life for herself, a path for herself; I would have died for that right like she died for mine.”
As a “spoken word and performance artist,” Josephine spins off metaphors that liken her post-abortive self to steel and the act of tearing her child apart to chopping down a cherry tree. How poetic. How wonderfully it distances herself from her own actions.
We are told over and over that it is her body (that is, Josephine’s body. Her baby’s body evidently didn’t really exist). Aborting a helpless baby relieves her of the burden of caring for a child and pulls double duty as a defiant political statement.

Ben Johnson asks
“What kind of parent asks his son or daughter to die for the “right” to abortion? Parents are supposed to be the one who sacrificially care for their children, who forsake their own comfort, who do whatever is necessary – even die – to keep their children safe, healthy, and well. Josephine’s blithe, ‘Sorry, but you came at the wrong time’ sounds as hollow as a gangland assassin’s apology to the family caught in the crossfire of a drive-by shooting. Abortion severs the love that God, or Mother Nature, or evolution, or whatever you choose to believe in placed within every pregnant woman to link the mother to her child.”
As the poem unfurls, so, too, does the banner of Josephine’s considerable resentment and defiance.
“I am so sick of keeping these words contained; I am women now; I will not be tamed,” she tells us, her anger mounting. In the world she envisions, stories like hers will be everywhere, including “next to the flyer for yoga for babies.”

Josephine concludes, “I don’t care about your ignorant views. When I become a mother it’ll be when I choose.” Take that, buddy.
Of course, she was a mother, which she fully knows, just like she is ashamed, not matter how many times she says otherwise. Why else bother to talk about (had the baby been allowed to be born, that is) how Josephine would have taught her all the things Josephine’s mother taught her, taken her to museums, told her stories about her grandfather, been a good mother?
The stories of how women are “not ashamed” of their abortions not only grow more and more ludicrous, they become sadder and sadder and sadder

Source: NRLC News

RU 486


The Abortion Pill Known as “RU-486”: By any other name… Just as deadly

By Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., NRL Director of Education & Research
RU4869If there wasn’t enough confusion already, we now find that the abortion drug mifepristone (the generic name for RU-486) is being produced in other countries and sold under other names. Why does that matter?
It’s a wake-up call for anyone who thought that the abortion pill was just about adding one other boutique abortion option to American clinics. What is clear now is that chemical abortion has become big business, on a global scale, and a lot pharmaceutical entrepreneurs are looking to cash in. And they don’t care much about the risk these online drug stores pose to women in countries all over the globe.
Mifepristone originally was named RU-38486, as it was the 38,486th chemical compound synthesized by French pharmaceutical maker, Roussel-Uclaf. Calling it RU-486 is a matter of shorthand, though it also has the unintentionally ironic feature of being an abbreviated textual form of the question “Are You For 86?” To “86″ something has long been American slang for getting rid of that thing or person.
Mifepristone was first developed in 1980 and went on the French market as an abortifacient in 1988, followed by Britain in 1991 and Sweden in 1992. In Europe, it has been sold as Mifegyne and the company producing it there underwent a number of mergers and changes until rights were transferred to a new entity called Exelgyn headed by a former Roussel executive.
Rights in the United States went to the Population Council of New York, which set up a distributor called Danco and contracted with a Chinese manufacturer by the name of Hua Lian. Once approved, mifepristone was sold in the U.S. as Mifeprex, though it sometimes marketed as “The Early Option” pill.
It wasn’t very long after Roussel researcher Etienne-Emile Baulieu announced his discovery of mifepristone that others began working to make copies of the abortion pill. China announced its own version of mifepristone the same year that sales began in France (1988). Four different pharmaceutical firms began marketing the drug in India shortly after it was approved there in 2002.
Original patents expired years ago, swinging the doors wide open for manufacturers of generics. None are known to exist for mifepristone in the United States, but there are multiple Indian and Chinese firms advertising and selling abortion pills on-line.
One website listed 18 different names for mifepristone sold by 15 different Indian firms. Our research uncovered at least thirteen additional generic versions and brand names as well as several additional companies (see list below).
Several different generic mifepristones come from China, too, from different companies (though one, the New Hualian company, looks suspiciously like the firm that supplies mifepristone to the U.S.). There are also versions from the Russian Federation, Taiwan, Vietnam, and the Republic of Georgia.
Several of the names of these pills are so bizarre they would be comic, were their intent not so deadly – Abortom, Termipil, Undo, Nopreg, Unwanted.

Whether this list gives a full and complete picture of all the producers of mifepristone is difficult to say.
This information alone raises many questions. What relationships exist between the various distributors and manufacturers? Is the Cipla in Vietnam just a subsidiary of the global Cipla pharmaceutical company headquartered in Mumbai (Bombay, India)? Why do certain companies appear to produce the same pill under the different names, e.g., Bi Yun and Zi Yun, both by China’s Renfu Pharmaceutical?

Exelgyn still exists and is listed as the producer of Mifegyne for much of Europe. However it was acquired by the Nordic Pharma Group in 2010, which is listed as the manufacturer for other European countries (Germany, United Kingdom, Finland). It also appears to be some part of the mifepristone pipeline for other sellers like Istar in New Zealand, Cosan in Switzerland, and Laboratoire Macors in Estonia.

Exelgyn tried to keep a generic competitor, Linepharma, from setting up shop in France, but was unsuccessful. (www.juricaf.org/arret/FRANCE-CONSEILDETAT-20140306-375093).
Linepharma’s entry into the field is significant, especially now that it has partnered with WomanCare Global, a “women’s reproductive health charity” to provide mifepristone in seven European and seven African countries (none specified in the WCG 2/8/12 release).Linepharma is also lined up to supply abortion pills for Australia.
One would assume that generics are pure and chemically identical to the original, but this is not necessarily the case. On March 9, 2010, the FDA issued an official consumer safety alert, warning would be buyers “Don’t buy these drugs over the Internet or from foreign sources.” One of the drugs featured on the list was “Mifeprex (mifepristone or RU-486).”
The FDA warned consumers that these drugs were available in the U.S., “only under specially created safety controls.” Those safety controls are “bypassed” if bought over the internet or from other countries, “placing patients who use these drugs at higher risk.” The FDA cautioned that drugs bought from foreign sources are “generally not FDA approved.”
Earlier this year, Consumer Reports (4/25/14) reported on an FDA crackdown on Indian pharmaceutical companies selling drugs online to patients in the U.S. Sun Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer/distributor of mifepristone products Medabon and Mifeprin, was one of those subject to sanctions.
India and China, two of the biggest suppliers of mifepristone, are also two of the world’s leading drug exporters. They have about 500 manufacturing plants each registered with the FDA (it is unclear how many of these on-line sellers are among those registered).
The FDA is mandated to inspect these firms. However, according to Consumer Reports, the FDA needs additional staff to complete that task.
Links to some on-line pharmacies and sellers advertising mifepristone are now dead, but it is not known whether these are down due to government action or business problems.
Consumer Reports says that common issues uncovered by the FDA are “inadequate testing and quality checks, inconsistencies in data collection, and contaminated products.”
The situation (or competition) is so bad that even Women on Waves, one of the early proponents of clandestine chemical abortions, warns women,
Do not buy any pills from the website “Abortion-pill-online.com” or “mifepristone-misoprostol.com” or “mifepristone-online.com”. The medicines are not Mifepristone, Mifegyne or RU 486 as they claim. Women on Waves ordered and analysed them and the medicines that were sent to us did not contain the active ingredient Mifepristone!!! Do not order from the website “drugdelivery.ca” or “cytoteconline.com” either, the package never arrives!!!
This, while their partner website, Women on Web, directs women to their own Indian mifepristone manufacturer to order abortion pills for quick shipping worldwide.
While room does not permit detailed discussion here, many of these same companies and several others also manufacture their own generic versions of misoprostol, sold in the U.S. under the brand name Cytotec. This powerful prostaglandin is both commonly used in conjunction with mifepristone (to stimulate powerful uterine contractions to expel the child killed by the RU-486) and is also increasingly promoted and used as a stand alone abortifacient.
Why would anyone use or prescribe or even tolerate the use of misoprostol on its own? It is cheaper. Moreover it is easier to secure because misoprostol is already available in more countries because it has a legitimate medical use– people who take lots of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs use misoprostol to help protect against ulcers.
Misoprostol is sometimes sold in a kit with mifepristone (RU-486) by some of these manufacturers (e.g., Sun’s Medabon, again, and the Antipreg Kit of Intas, and MTP Kit by Cipla). But misoprostol is also sold separately, sometimes under a new brand name, e.g., Aboprost, Misobort, Zitotec.
Exelgyn, the French firm that took over production of mifepristone in Europe in 1997, is now marketing three versions of misoprostol tablet packs – MisoOne, Topogyne, and Mispregnol. They say that these are to be used in conjunction with mifepristone, but the number of pills in a package (16) would seem to invite use as a stand alone abortifacient.
There is nothing to indicate that any of these new brands or generic versions of these abortifacients are in any way safer or more effective than the originals. There are substantial grounds for being concerned that they may prove as deadly for the mother as they are for the unborn babies.
But because the patents have expired, generic manufacturers can copy and produce the pills cheaply and sell them around the globe via the internet, with the international abortion lobby helping stimulate the market by promoting their use around the world, even in countries where abortion may not be legal.
With the manufacturer or distributor thousands of miles away, perhaps on an entirely different continent, and no real immediate professional medical help if something goes wrong, things could deteriorate quickly.
One doesn’t expect the packaging to mention the 19 women who died after taking mifepristone that the FDA knew about in April 2011(FDA, “Mifepristone U.S. Postmarketing Adverse Events Summary through 04/30/2011″). Most of those, we should note, were under a doctor’s care. That may not be the case with these generic drugs bought online.
Heaven help the pregnant mom who orders some strange sounding “abortion pill” from some manufacturer over the internet that hardly anyone has ever heard of before.
Shakespeare said that a rose “by any other name would smell as sweet.” Mifepristone, by any other name, would be just as deadly.
All Over the Map with Mifepristone
A few words about the chart. While every effort was made to be as comprehensive as possible, mifepristone is certainly being sold by more generic manufacturers and under more brand names than are shown here. We seemed to find more every time we tracked down a new source. We tried to match the spelling at the source, but there may be other spellings of same drug from the same company. The same drug may be sold under different names by the same company. We were unable to tell from the information available to us whether or how some of these companies were related. Some companies listed here may be manufacturers, others may merely be distributors or even marketing companies. Some may be partners, some may have common suppliers, some may get their pills from a subsidiary operating in another country under a different name. The country listed here is the home of the related company. Their pills may be sold all over the world or the company may have specific approval to sell or distribute pills in a particular country or set of countries.
Brand/Generic Name Manufacturer/Distributor Company Country
Mifeston Incepta Pharmaceulticals Ltd Bangladesh

Bi Yun Renfu Pharmaceutical China
Han Zhu Din Zhejiang Lihai Huifeng Chemical Factory China
Hanzhudin Mifepristone Yulan Co Ltd China
Han Zhu Ting Xianju China
Hou ding Nuo Xianju China
Mifepristone Hubei Gedian Humanwell Pharmaceutical Co.,Ltd China
Mifepristone ChemEN (China) Co Ltd China
Mi Fu Shenzhen Zifu China
Mifolian New Hualian China
Nuo Lv Ting Zizhu China
Xiyin New Hualian China
Zi Yun Renfu Pharmaceutical China

Miffee/Mifepristone Linepharma Linepharma France
Mifegyne/Mifégyne Exelgyn/Nordic/Cosan/Istar/Laborotoires Macors France

Mifolian Shanghai Raas Republic of Georgia
Mifopriston Obninsk Republic of Georgia
Pencrofton Biochemie Republic of Georgia

A Kare DKT India India
Abo Pill Cure Quick India
Abortom Neiss India
Antipreg/Antipreg Kit Intas India
Cedate Profic Organic India
Colestone Coles Pharma India
Elmif Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd. India
Herwont Torrent Pharma India
Medabon Sun Pharmaceuticals India
Mefipil Abbott India India
MF-Kare DKT India India
Mifebort Taj Pharmaceuticals Ltd India
Mifebort Syrup Taj Pharmaceuticals Ltd India
Mifegest Zydus Alidac India
Mifekit Alliaance Biotech India
Mifeprin Sun Pharmaceuticals India
Mifepristone Acme Formulation India
Mifepristone Medipol India
Miferiv East Africa (I) Remedies Pvt Ltd (Otsira) India
Mifiton West Coast Pharmaceutical Works Ltd India
Mifonext Bionext Pharma India
Mifty Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd India
Mistone Novaduo Pharma India
Mtpill/MTP Kit Cipla India
O Pill/O-Pill Orison Pharmaceutical India
Pregnot Kit Lupin India
Relezed/Relized Zee Laboratories India
T-Pill Bestochem Formulations (India) Ltd India
Termipil Alkem Laboratories Ltd India
Undo FDC Spectra India
Unwanted Mankind India

Mifepristone Maxim Pharmaceuticals Kenya
Mediprist Marie Stopes Kenya Kenya

Mifegyn Izvarino Pharma Russia
Mifepristone MIR Pharma Russia
Agesta Biohimik Russia
Pencroftonium Pharmstandart Russia
Pencroftonum Pentkroft Pharma; Pharmsynthez Russia

Mifegyne Medi Challenge (Pty) Ltd South Africa

Apano Lotus Pharmaceutical Taiwan

Mariprist Marie Stopes International United Kingdom?

Mifeprex* Danco USA

Mifestad Stada – VN JV Vietnam
Nopreg Pill Cipla Vietnam

 * The FDA recently approved Korlym (previously known as Corlux), a brand name for mifepristone, that can be used to treat patients with Cushing’s Syndrome, a condition where a tumor in the pituatary causes excess production of cortisol, which can lead to rapid weight gain, hypertension, high blood sugar, muscle and bone weakness, and cognitive disturbance. Packaging warns patients not to take Korlym if pregnant. While doctors may legally prescribe any approved drug for any purpose they see fit, it seems unlikely that a doctor will prescribe Korlym for abortion because of the high price for the drug, approximately $186 (wholesale) for a 300 mg pill. Mifeprex was selling for around $90 per 200mg pill.

Source: NRLC News

Premature Babies


Baby “aborted” at 26 weeks to save mother’s life survives delivery, now healthy 10-year-old

By Dave Andrusko
Natasha Smith’s birth was induced 14 weeks early when her mother developed a life-threatening condition.
Natasha Smith’s birth was induced 14 weeks early when her mother developed a life-threatening condition.]

Ten years ago Norelle Smith and fiance Sandy Cameron were told that Norelle, then 26 weeks pregnant, had toxic pre-eclampsia. “The condition was starving struggling [the baby] in the womb and attacking her mum’s internal organs,” according to the Sunday Post. Their baby, they were told, had stopped developing at 22 weeks and had no chance to survive. They reluctantly agreed to deliver the baby 14 weeks early.
But not only did Natasha (who was born just six inches long and weighed only 1lb 4oz) astonish the medical team by surviving delivery, she overcame all the initial predictions that she would be severely brain damaged and live a few days, at most.
Now she is the apple of her parents’ eye, and has celebrated her 10th birthday—“with a limo party and meal in town with her friends,” according to the Sunday Post!
The newspaper reported that in 2004 doctors insisted the step was vital to save Norelle’s life. Drugs were used to induce the baby’s delivery.

“But, after being induced 14 weeks early, Natasha was born in an intact membrane at the former Queen Mother’s Hospital in Glasgow.” The story continues
When Norelle felt the membrane move she alerted the midwife who whisked it off to intensive care.
Norelle’s instinct and the midwife’s quick actions, bought Natasha the slightest chance of survival, which she grasped with both tiny hands.
Battling Natasha was on a ventilator for just one day before growing strong enough to support herself and in late August – just four months later – she had developed so much, she was allowed home.
In the decade since brave Natasha won her unlikely fight for life, she has continued to defy medics’ predictions, including fears she would be small and would suffer developmental problems.
Instead, the Park Primary School pupil is a healthy 4ft 8in tall and thriving in the top reading group in her class.
A few months after Natasha was born, the Scotsman did a story on her remarkable life. Ms. Smith said
“Seeing how Natasha came out – she is amazing – it is shocking people can terminate babies that late. Twelve weeks would be better than 24, but I still don’t agree with it.
“They say a foetus from seven weeks has got a heartbeat. It’s still a baby regardless of what size it is.
“Natasha was small but she was a formed baby. She stopped growing at 22 weeks and she was perfect. She had eyelashes, nails, hair on her head; she opened her eyes and she could cry.”

Source: NRLC News

Monday, September 22, 2014

Planned Parenthood/ ObamaCare


Planned Parenthood & ObamaCare funding clears House…with majority GOP support

WhiteFlagJust in case you were wondering, the leaders supposedly representing the pro-life cause on Capitol Hill still haven’t found their backbones. CNS News reports that 176 House Republicans, including Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and Majority Whip Steve Scalise, voted last week to pass a government funding resolution that, among other things, continues the flow of tax dollars to Big Abortion:
The bill will fund the government through Dec. 11, when a “lame-duck” Congress, which will include members thrown out by the voters in November, will be able to return to Washington and vote for programs and governmental actions that they may not have wanted to vote for before the election. That new funding bill will also be passed before the newly elected members of Congress will be sworn in and have a say in what the government does […]
Planned Parenthood–whose federal funding is permitted under the continuing resolution–said in its most recent annual report that it did 327,166 abortions in fiscal 2012. The same Planned Parenthood annual report said the group received $540.6 million in funding from local, state and federal governments in the year that ended on June 30, 2013.
In addition to the various ways by which we already knew ObamaCare funded abortion, we now know from the Government Accountability office that “that only 1 of 18 insurers it reviewed was separately itemizing a charge for coverage of elective abortions on enrollees’ bills,” which was the accounting trick the White House used to pretend were keeping federal subsidies from elective abortions.
So precisely when pro-life mistrust of the Obama Administration has been vindicated and the case for opposition is stronger than ever, GOP leadership doesn’t even put up a fight, thereby defeating the reason the Constitution vests Congress with the power of the purse in the first place. It’s Civics 101 that free self-government can’t work without its three branches checking and balancing each other, and checks & balances can’t work if one of those branches decides it just doesn’t feel like doing its job.
Sure, apologists will point to last year’s failed government shutdown as evidence that they couldn’t have done anything anyway. But the shutdown failed because Republicans didn’t pair it with a concerted effort to make their case to the public and win the public relation debate that could have forced the other side to relent and accept they just weren’t getting funding for the parts of their agenda the House was drawing the line at. If your position is that leaders can only do what everyone else already wants to do and can’t be expected to change hearts and minds…well, then what you’re describing is something very different than leadership.

Besides, even if you can’t stop it, that doesn’t mean you had to cast a vote for it. What excuse could their possibly be for that, aside from some craven, delusional hope that pandering would somehow get Boehner and company in the good graces of Obama, congressional Democrats, or the mainstream media? Letting the funding take effect would have been bad enough, but our brilliant, courageous representatives have needlessly given the abortion lobby something even worse: the veneer of bipartisanship.

Just before the House vote to inflict ObamaCare on the nation, John Boehner’s famous “Hell No” speech gave us a hint of the righteous indignation we’d expect of a true leader. Tragically, it seems that whatever passes for leadership today has traded “hell no” for “sure, whatever.

Source: LiveAction News

A Great Movie


Crisis pregnancy center film praised at UN Women’s Guild screening

By Mary Rezac, New York City, N.Y.
(L-R) Darlisha Dozier, Fr. Gerald Murray and Kathy DiFiore at the Christopher's Award Ceremony in Manhattan. Photo courtesy of Kathy DiFiore.
(L-R) Darlisha Dozier, Fr. Gerald Murray and Kathy DiFiore at the Christopher’s Award Ceremony in Manhattan. Photo courtesy of Kathy DiFiore.

A film based on the true story of hope offered to a young woman in a crisis pregnancy received positive reviews after its screening at the United Nations in New York on Sept. 11.
The screening of “Gimme Shelter” was sponsored by the U.N. Women’s Guild, whose mission is to help children in need throughout the world. U.N. Ambassadors and their wives were invited to attend the screening.
Long-standing member of the guild Kathy DiFiore is the founder of the Several Sources Shelters featured in the film.
“(The screening) was a great honor for me, for our Several Sources Shelters mothers and their babies, past, present and future as well as all other organizations in the United States and beyond who serve pregnant women in need,” DiFiore said.
“Gimme Shelter” focuses on Agnes “Apple” Bailey, portrayed by Vanessa Hudgens. Apple, whose character is based on a real person, is a pregnant 16-year-old who runs away from her abusive mother. She lives on the New Jersey streets, sleeping in unlocked cars and eating out of dumpsters.
After a car accident lands her in the hospital, a Catholic priest played by James Earl Jones visits Apple and challenges her to begin a new life. He directs her to find help at a local pregnancy shelter. Initially resistant, Apple agrees. At the Several Sources Shelter she finds hope, security, and sisterhood in preparing to become a mother.
The young woman whose story is the basis for the film, Darlisha Dozier, was present for the screening and answered questions afterwards.
“She explained that while it was very difficult because of her prior abuse she endured, eventually she began to trust us. Her story is a common one but through God’s grace with time and experience our young mothers learn to become a part of not only our Several Sources Family but God’s holy family,” DiFiore said.
Zoe Chang, who serves on the International Board of the Guild, helped organize the screening and told EWTN News it is “a project we’re very proud of.”
The film accurately portrayed the reality of many young women in crisis pregnancy situations who find help at these shelters, Chang said.
“One person, a man (in the audience) who didn’t know about the program…said he thought this is a fairytale, it’s not real,” she said. “I told him, this is real, we know, we have been visiting the shelter, we have met these girls, we know what’s happening, it’s not a fairy tale it’s the truth, it’s a true story.”
Director and producer of the film Ronald Krauss told EWTN News it was “amazing” to be present for the screening.

This is the second of Krauss’ films to be screened by the Women’s Guild. The first, Amexica, was shown in March 2011 and tells the story of a young boy sold into human trafficking.
“In a way it is like a collaboration because we both have the same goals to help others,” Krauss said.
Father Gerald Murray, pastor of the U.N. parish Church of the Holy Family, was present for the screening and said the film sends an important message about women’s rights.
“I think the whole push of women’s rights, which the U.N. has spent a lot of time discussing, has to include the right of women not to be coerced into abortion,” he said, “and the right of minors to receive non-coercive aid so that they can keep their baby if they wish to.”
It also reminded him of a pregnant, unmarried teenage girl who approached him 20 years ago looking for help.

“She wanted to keep her baby, and Kathy took her in and helped her,” he said. “She was going to give the baby up for adoption but she decided to keep it, and he grew up to be a fine young man.”
His overall impression: “It’s one of the most powerful pro-life movies I’ve ever seen.”
DiFiore said another screening of the film could be in the works.
“Several members of the Guild mentioned to me that they wanted to sponsor another screening in the future so more U.N. diplomats and their wives could attend.”

Editor’s note. This appeared at EWTN News.

Friday, September 19, 2014



Prochoicer: Witnessing abortion is “intense emotional experience”

By Sarah Terzo
Washington Post's Sarah Kliff
Washington Post’s Sarah Kliff

RH Reality Check had article by Kathleen Reeves written in response to another article where another pro-choicer describes witnessing an abortion. Reeves writes
“I’ve witnessed abortions not as a journalist but as a volunteer at Planned Parenthood. I assist the doctor, scrub technician, and anesthetist with room set-up and other simple tasks during the procedure, and I support the patients before, during, and after the abortion—taking their blood pressure, encouraging them to breathe deeply if they’re upset or in pain, holding their hands. It’s true that it’s an intense emotional experience, especially the first time you witness it. First, it’s overwhelming for someone outside the medical profession, like Sarah Kliff [a Newsweek reporter at the time], and me, to be present for a surgical procedure.”…. I was exhausted, physically and emotionally, after my first day at Planned Parenthood. I think it’s wise that Kliff, after writing about abortion for years, has finally seen the procedure. If she’d like to further explore her emotional reaction to it, I’m sure her local Planned Parenthood would be glad to have her help.”  —  (Kathleen Reeves “Witnessing Abortion,” RH Reality Check August 20, 2009.)
Abortionist Leroy Carhart
Abortionist Leroy Carhart
While early suction abortion may not reveal recognizable body parts, later abortions do. The person witnessing abortion may not see the recognizable parts traveling down the suction tube, but carefully examining the remains as early as 7 weeks post-conception will show arms and legs in the aftermath.

Editor’s note. This appeared at clinicquotes.com.

Source: NLC News



What does the World Federation of Right to Die Societies not want me to know?

By Alex Schadenberg, International Chair – Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
righttodielogoAs an International leader of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) I decided to register for the World Federation of Right to Die Societies – 20th World Conference in Chicago (September 17 – 20) that is co-sponsored by the Final Exit Network.
My registration was accepted, my flight was booked, my hotel room was reserved, but then I received an email informing me that my registration was revoked.

Thaddeus Pope, who is speaking at the Chicago conference, registered and attended the recent conference that EPC co-sponsored in Minnesota.

What does the World Federation of Right to Die Societies not want me to know?
Maybe they don’t want me to hear about their promotion of euthanasia for people with dementia.
The Belgian legislation that extended euthanasia to children originally included a section to extend euthanasia to people with dementia.

Maybe they don’t want me to hear about their promotion of euthanasia for people with psychiatric conditions.
Recently the Dutch Health Minister stated that 45 people died by euthanasia for psychiatric conditions in 2013 in the Netherlands.

Maybe they don’t want me to hear about their promotion of euthanasia for depressed people who are otherwise healthy.
Professor Tom Mortier recently launched a court challenge concerning the euthanasia death of his depressed mother in Belgium.

Maybe they didn’t want me to hear the conversation among the delegates in the hallway.
When I attended the World Federation of Right to Die Societies conference in 2006 I learned, through personal conversations, that many of the delegates had been involved with causing the death of a relative or others. I learned that volunteers are trained to assist deaths, to provide the means, to counsel suicide, have sometimes completed the act with a pillow, or held the hands of person, preventing them from removing the asphyxiation/suicide hood.
Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide gives someone else the legal right to cause your death. Euthanasia is dangerous.

Editor’s note. This appeared at alexschadenberg.blogspot.com.



Belgian media promotes couple euthanasia

By Paul Russell, Founder, HOPE Australia
elderlycouple9The Belgian online news service Moustique (the Mosquito) is featuring an interview with an elderly Belgian couple and their son in which they discuss the couple’s plans to die together by euthanasia.
Couple euthanasia is not a new phenomenon. In June 2013 we reported on an eerily similar case of an elderly couple dying together by euthanasia in what can only be concluded as euthanasia for social reasons.
Like the earlier couple, Francis and Anne are both in their 80s and, while they do have health problems, neither is terminally ill. Moustique conducted a long interview with the couple and their son, John Paul, and, while we have characterised this article as an advertorial [an advertisement in the form of editorial content] for such actions, contained in the interview are disturbing facts and comments that seem sadly to be accepted as ‘normal’ in terms of reasons why such a couple would want euthanasia together.
Both Anne and Francis are receiving regular medical treatment for ongoing issues and, as one would expect with advanced age, they clearly recognise their deteriorating health.
They tell Moustique that they had originally planned to die together using ‘sleeping pills (and) plastic bag over the head’, ‘as savages’ says Francis. Later in the interview he reflects on the assertion that what he and Anne intend to do ‘takes courage’ by saying that jumping off a building or hanging would take courage, ‘but a doctor who makes you a shot and lets you fall asleep? It does not take courage.’
Francis and Anne, as an alternative to the ‘savage’ death, talked to their children who, quoting Francis, said, ‘We will look for a more elegant solution.’ And so their son set out to find out how best to help his parents die by euthanasia. Francis later offers his gratitude to John Paul and his sister: ‘Our children were helpful. I repeat: without our son and our daughter, it would never have succeeded.’
This is disturbing and raises questions about whether the actions of the children contributed in any way to re-enforce or to pressure Anne and Francis in any way. John Paul’s conclusions seem more about his own discomfort and inconvenience:
“I totally understand the attitude of my parents. I support them too, for both them and for us, their children, this is the best solution. If one of them should die, who would remain would be so sad, and totally dependent on us. This may sound ridiculous, but if only a practical standpoint, it would be impossible for us to come here every day, take care of our father or our mother. At one point, the column of negatives – the grief, the pain – is longer than the column positives. This automatically reduces fear to go against the urge to stay. In this case, I can perfectly understand that we say, “It’s time.””
Francis, Anne and John Paul characterise their ultimate decision as bringing peace and serenity to their situation. But this is clearly contradicted in a number of significant ways best summarized by Francis:
“That’s why we want to go together: because we both fear of the future. It’s as simple as this: we are afraid of what lies ahead. Fear of falling alone and above all, fear of the consequences of loneliness. The future can bring us misfortune.”

Though the daughter is not given any voice in the interview, it is clear from the son, John Paul’s comments that the children basically confirmed these fears by supporting their desire for death by euthanasia. The fears themselves are quite normal, but this family collectively threw up the white flag of surrender. That the children appear to have been willing accomplices showing, as far as we can tell, no resistance or suggestion of alternative, is unconscionable.

Consider also the reasons given by Francis and Anne which are partly personal fears and partly about a false altruism. Not wanting to ‘watch the slow decline of a partner’; fear of going to a nursing home; ‘too many people on this earth’- making more pension money available for others; not wanting to ‘dig into our savings’ and not being able to do the things they could at an earlier age. Add this to John Paul’s clear point that he didn’t want to look after them, and it’s almost a ‘perfect storm’ of lack of imagination, lack of a willingness to care and to look towards other alternatives.

There is also an insidious cultural side to this affair evident in the reporting at Moustique. There is no alternate voice here; no suggestion that promoting this story might have a deleterious effect upon others. No help lines promoted, no questioning in any constructive way. The social question, as always, is about the cart and the horse – is the media effectively pushing the issue or is it, as it may claim, simply reflecting the vox populi?

This is not a ‘celebration of choice’; far from it. It is a rationalization devoid of humanity and created, in the first instance by the legal possibility of euthanasia. It is then abetted by whatever it is in that family and that society that confirmed and supported the kind of dysfunction that allowed the children to confirm and assist instead of saying a clear, No, and offering every alternate support, no matter what the cost.
Editor’s note. This appeared at noeuthanasia.org.au

Source: NRLC News



Baby Angela defies odds, turns 6 months old

By Jessica A. Botelho, Staff Reporter, Rhode Island Catholic
BabyAngelaPROVIDENCE — Baby Angela smiles as a visitor tickles her feet. She wiggles and coos, moving her head from side to side.
“She’s doing great,” Angela’s mother, Sonia Morales, told a Rhode Island Catholic reporter last week. “She’s almost 14 pounds, and she’s growing well.”
In May, Angela underwent a three-hour surgery to close an opening at the top of her head, as she has anencephaly, a neural tube defect in which portions of the brain, skull and scalp do not form in whole or in part during embryonic development.

She was also born with an encephalocele, another neural tube defect characterized by sac-like protrusions of the brain and membranes that cover it through openings in the skull. During the surgery, doctors removed the encephalocele, and closed the opening.

Morales, a parishioner at Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Church in Providence, said doctors predicted Angela would likely be stillborn or die within a few hours or days following her birth. But on September 23, Angela will turn six months old.

“Everything she’s doing they said she wouldn’t be able to do,” said Morales, as her husband, Rony, holds Angela, and their older daughter, Elizabeth, 5, looks on. “She smiles when we talk to her, and she’s responding to our voices and our love. She’s starting to crawl, and she can scoot three feet. She cries when she’s hungry, and lets us know what she doesn’t like. She loves to be touched, and she loves kisses. We were prepared for the worst, but God had other plans.”

While she was pregnant with Angela, Morales started a Facebook account not only to raise awareness about anencephaly, but to also defend human life. The account has more than 3,100 “likes,” with Morales adding that it has generated at least 50,000 views.

Morales often receives messages of support, noting that many women who have poor-prenatal diagnoses tell her that baby Angela gives them hope. One woman, said Morales, refused to tell anyone that her fetus was diagnosed with anencephaly, as she was ashamed and afraid.
“But by seeing Angela, she told her family that her baby has this condition and she started raising awareness,” Morales said. “She was hiding, but now she’s talking about her baby.”
Yet, not every Facebook user praises Morales. She said she recently received a message from someone who accused her of being a religious fanatic, claiming that aborting a fetus with a birth defect is “merciful.”

“Their defense was that the child won’t have a full life,” said Morales. “But what guarantee do you have? Some people have everything in life and they are miserable. Angela is not suffering. She’s full of love, and where there is love, there is life. I responded back that I had the baby because of pure love. Mercy is loving someone with their imperfections. No one is perfect. We just need to love them despite their imperfections, and give them the best life possible.”

To further defend life, Morales will take part in the tenth annual Human Life Guild Day on September 27 at St. Philip Church in Greenville. The event, which begins with a 9 a.m. Mass featuring Bishop Thomas J. Tobin as Main Celebrant and Homilist, includes presentations, workshops, lunch and more.

Carol Owens, the diocesan Life and Family Office coordinator, invited Morales to speak at the event, as Morales and her family trusted God despite a poor-prenatal diagnosis.
“We need to deliver a message to parents who receive a poor-prenatal diagnosis that there is help, there are resources, and there is a caring and compassionate team waiting to guide them through their crisis pregnancy,” said Owens. “Angela defied all odds because God always has the final word.”
Morales feels the same. She’s nervous about addressing a crowd, but wants to help raise more pro-life awareness.

“I want to share our story so we can try to save other babies,” she said. “Maybe by hearing Angela’s story, they will choose life instead of abortion. Life is sacred, from inception to natural death.”
But before Human Life Guild Day, the Morales family will celebrate Angela’s six month birthday. They plan to bake her a cake, and spend time with loved ones.
“Because of Angela, we are more thankful to God,” Morales said. “We don’t have any regrets. We are not living in fear; we are just living by faith. Always trust in God because miracles can happen.”
Editor’s note. This appeared at
www.thericatholic.com/detail.html?sub_id=6834#.VBsdYWppM3I.facebook and is reprinted with permission.

Source: NRLC News

Abortion and Meedia


Stephen Colbert Joke! ‘Abortion’ Is a ‘Funny Word’ – Like ‘Guacamole’

By Katie Yoder
Mindy Kaling and Stephen Colbert
Mindy Kaling and Stephen Colbert

Oh, the irony. The liberal feminist media are proving to be trailblazers. At least, that is, for male comedians.

Abortion is “a funny word” – just like “guacamole” – according to comedian Stephen Colbert. For his Sept. 15 “The Colbert Report” show, Colbert invited actress Mindy Kaling on as a guest to discuss her comments against abortion sitcoms. Following Colbert’s lead, Kaling admitted her show “might” find a “hilarious take on abortion” in the future.
Kaling, who garnered fame with “The Office,” now writes, produces and stars as an OB-GYN in Fox’s comedy “The Mindy Project.” During a recent interview, Flare’s Magazine’s Maureen Halushak quoted Kaling as saying, “It would be demeaning to the topic to talk about [abortion] in a half-hour sitcom.”

After identifying himself as an “enormous fan,” Colbert addressed Kaling’s “little controversy.” “People criticized you because you said that, perhaps as an OB-GYN, you don’t do like the transvaginal ultrasounds on your show, you don’t deal with this question of abortion on your show.”
In response, Kaling stressed, “My show is as much about gynecology as ‘The Office’ was about paper.” While “a lot of women like look to me,” Kaling admitted, “abortion is not a hilarious subject.”

But “It’s a funny word,” Colbert interjected. Going along with the applause, he continued, “It’s like guacamole.” [You can watch the video.]
Keeping with the theme, Kaling concluded, “We haven’t found a hilarious take on abortion that’s saying something new yet. But we might.”

During a HuffPost Live segment, Kaling also clarified, “When I made that comment, I think that I misspoke.” She continued, “I said I thought it would demean the issue of abortion to talk about it on a sitcom. What I should have said was ‘my sitcom.'”
But she also added about abortion: “It doesn’t strike me – and I don’t think this is controversial – as the funniest of areas, and I run a comedy show.”

Editor’s note. This appeared at Newsbusters.org

Source: NRLC News