Saturday, May 28, 2016

Hillary


 

When pressed, Clinton campaign attributes mounting problems to “vast right wing conspiracy”

By Dave Andrusko
CNN's Wolf Blitzer (left) and Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer (left) and Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon
With the conventions of both political parties coming closer and closer, and with the infighting between Hillary Clinton and Democratic Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders growing more vituperous by the day, it can’t be a good sign for the former Secretary of State when the editorial page of the Washington Post rips into her, as does sympathetic Post columnist Dana Milbank, and even Democratic flack NBC’s Chuck Todd voices skepticism.
The firestorm of criticism was lit, of course, by the scathing report by the State Department’s inspector general this week about Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server when she served as President Obama’s Secretary of State.
Todd actually did a good job on Meet the Press Daily when he directly addressed a core problem for Clinton: the public, including many Democrats, has serious doubts about bedrock issues of personal integrity.
Todd said
“Your lead in the polls arguably, might be a lot bigger if you didn’t have these honest and trustworthy issues with the voters.”
Well, yes, when only forty-some percent believe you are either and, by the way, when you have more negatives (41%) than positives (38%) among those Democratic voters supporting Sen. Sanders.
The email server issue is not our issue. What is relevant is the manner in which Clinton’s handling of it has diminished her prospects and soured reliably Democratic outlets (not, I hasten to add, that they would ever support a Republican for President).
For example, the Post editorial concludes (after listing a couple of weak Clinton rationalizations)
But there is no excuse for the way Ms. Clinton breezed through all the warnings and notifications. While not illegal behavior, it was disturbingly unmindful of the rules. In the middle of the presidential campaign, we urge the FBI to finish its own investigation soon, so all information about this troubling episode will be before the voters.
Yikes.
Even though he begins by trotting out Clinton’s excuses, Milbank goes much further than the editorial board. Here’s a summary of his argument.
(1) A knee-jerk resistance to transparency:
But what’s damning in the new report is her obsessive and counterproductive secrecy.
(2) A well-earned reputation for believing if she can avoid providing a complete answer, the furor will eventually die down:
The stonewalling creates a firm impression, well captured by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer this week when he interviewed Clinton’s spokesman, Brian Fallon: “If she didn’t do anything wrong and she had nothing to hide, why didn’t she cooperate with the inspector general?”
(3) One step above being crooked:
But what Clinton has been is nearly as problematic as being crooked: Hunkered Hillary. At the first sign of conflict or accusation, Clinton circles the wagons, shuts her mouth and instructs those around her to do the same. This generates a whole lot of smoke, even if there’s no fire. Her secrecy elevates the accusations — whatever the accusations are.
(4) Finally, the reflex response that all criticism of Clinton emanates from the “vast right wing conspiracy”:
Fallon, a skilled flack, tried to argue that Clinton and her aides prioritized the similar Justice Department investigation and were cooperating with that one. Then he insinuated that “there were hints of an anti-Clinton bias” in the IG’s office.
The vast right-wing conspiracy had infiltrated the State Department! Asked Blitzer: “Are you accusing the inspector general of the State Department” — a Democratic appointee — “of having an anti-Clinton bias?”
The spokesman retreated, noting that the report documented “that the use of personal e-mail was widespread and done by her predecessors, including Secretary Powell.”
And that might have been the take-away — if Hunkered Hillary hadn’t let her instinctive caution again get the best of her.
Have a wonderful Memorial Day.

Source: NRLC News

Pain Capable and Babies Live

renee-preemie

New study: Up to 71% of premature babies can survive if given active care

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Pediatrics just released a new study that shows that medical advances continue to make the point of viability earlier and earlier in pregnancy. The study, conducted in 2015, tracked 106 micro-preemies, babies born at either 22 or 23 weeks gestation (which is 20-21 weeks post-fertilization), at the University of Cologne Medical Centre in Germany from 2010-2014. Of these 106 babies, 86 of them received active care instead of palliative care. 58 of those babies survived until hospital discharge (67%), with 20% of them surviving without any severe complications.

The study is relevant considering that pro-abortion activists are furious about yet another state passing a 20 week abortion ban. This study just further shows why these bans are needed. Scientifically, we know that preborn children are human beings. As their viability gets earlier, it becomes clear that there truly is no reason for late-term abortions to take place.
Despite the fact that these late-term abortions are medically unnecessary, there are late-term abortionists who perform them anyway. Planned Parenthood is among them. Planned Parenthood President and CEO Cecile Richards denied performing abortions after viability, yet multiple Planned Parenthood facilities will perform abortions up to 24 weeks.

Some clinics will only perform abortions up until 21 weeks, six days. However, there are babies who have been born that young and survived. Women may also get the date of their last menstrual period wrong, meaning that a baby could be older than she estimates him or her to be.
As medicine continues to advance, abortion should be further condemned. This is especially true for late-term abortion and the viability of preborn babies. As it moves earlier, and science continues to show that they can feel pain, it becomes more and more clear that late-term abortion is an atrocity that should not be tolerated.

Source: LiveAction News

Planned Parenthood and Rapists

trafficking_

Here are 10 rapists Planned Parenthood has helped

If you’re at college, you might hear about the Sexual Health Advocacy Group – SHAG for short. Known as “shaggers” (seriously), members try “to open up the conversation about sexual health, sex positivity, and sexual communication.” SHAG embraces disadvantaged groups, including those in the disabled community. It’s also fine with aborting them.

SHAG’s chapter at the University of Georgia has a website with links to various pro-abortion articles. Among them is a piece in Teen Vogue titled, “10 Girls Share How Planned Parenthood Made A Difference In Their Lives.”
Included is a story from “Danielle,” who describes being raped at 14 by several male acquaintances.

The experience left her “a hopeless, desperate, and sad young teen whose innocence was ripped away by four evil men,” and she was grateful to Planned Parenthood for giving her Plan B the next day. Danielle says she lied and told Planned Parenthood staff the sex was consensual; even if she hadn’t, I’m not sure it would have made a difference.
It didn’t when one of accused serial rapist Tyler Kost’s alleged victims went to Planned Parenthood. Despite telling staff she’d been assaulted, they decided filing a report would be too much “hassle.” Kost remained free, with local law enforcement contending that an investigation could have started months earlier if Planned Parenthood had come forward.
Image taken from Tyler Kost police report Planned Parenthood didn’t help Denise Fairbanks, either. Fairbanks was brought there for an abortion at 16 by her incestuous father. In a subsequent lawsuit, she recalled explicitly telling Planned Parenthood employees about the abuse…who proceeded to do nothing, allowing it to resume when she got home.
Live Action investigated the cover-up of child sexual abuse by Planned Parenthood.
Becki Brenner was president of the Planned Parenthood affiliate Fairbanks got taken to, and she insisted her organization would be exonerated, proclaiming, “I am going to be very, very pleased when the facts of this case do come out in a court of law.” Or not: Planned Parenthood chose to settle rather than face a jury.
But ignoring signs of abuse is nothing new at America’s largest abortion chain, which is why I’ve made a list of my own. So without further adieu, here are 10 child rapists that were helped by Planned Parenthood.
  1.  Gary Cross
When Cross’ wife noticed her 13 year-old daughter was gaining weight, Cross knew it was because he’d gotten her pregnant. Luckily for him, Planned Parenthood staff didn’t care that she was well below the age of consent. Instead of calling authorities, they arranged an abortion. With the evidence gone, Cross was free to keep abusing her – which he did.
2. Timothy Smith

Colorado’s Office of Children, Youth, & Families warns that when a child under fourteen “becomes pregnant or contracts a venereal disease,” it’s time to get suspicious. Employees at Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains don’t agree, with one admitting under oath in 2014 that “being thirteen and pregnant alone is not a red flag” there. That made things easy for Timothy Smith: he brought his 13 year-old stepdaughter in for an abortion after impregnating her. When they were done, Planned Parenthood turned the victim back over to her abuser, no questions asked. Later, when the girl’s mother sued Planned Parenthood, the abortion chain rushed to a settlement when the judge commented that PP’s conduct so outrageous that punitive damages would be appropriate.
3. Joseph Coles

Planned Parenthood didn’t file a report when Coles’ 12 year-old stepdaughter showed up. Then again, the two other abortion centers she was taken to didn’t say anything either.
4. Edgar Ramirez

Ramirez brought his 13 year-old daughter to Planned Parenthood for two abortions in less than 6 months. No action was taken.

5. Luis Gonzalez-Jose got Planned Parenthood to perform an abortion on an 11 year-old that he raped. Staff accepted the girl’s story of being impregnated by a 14 year-old boyfriend…despite her not knowing his name, address, or phone number.

6. Andrew King benefited from one of Planned Parenthood’s cover-up abortions in 1982. He continued preying on girls for over 25 years.

7. John Haller coerced his 14 year-old victim into an abortion at Planned Parenthood; he paid the bill while claiming to be her “stepbrother.”

8. Adam Gault brought his teenage victim to Planned Parenthood for an abortion, too.

9. Gray David Woods also received a helping hand.

10. Kevon Walker did as well.

Keep in mind that shame and fear cause many victims to remain silent. The truth is, there’s no way to know just how many crimes Planned Parenthood has helped cover up.

So, how can we stop this type of rape enablement? Not funding it would be a good start. Tell Congress that Planned Parenthood’s half billion dollar subsidy should go to federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and community health centers (CHCs) instead. Not only are they more accessible, they also offer services Planned Parenthood won’t. Last year, FQHCs performed over five hundred thousand mammograms. Planned Parenthood? Zero.

In her entry, Danielle said that “if you don’t support Planned Parenthood, you don’t support 14-year-old me.” Given that Planned Parenthood assists the type of men who preyed on her, I have to disagree.

Source: LiveAction News

Knew This Was Coming

Deborah_Nucatola3_810_500_55_s_c1

Planned Parenthood sponsors bill to make it illegal to record and post undercover footage

A bill making its way through the California State Assembly, sponsored by Planned Parenthood, seeks to make it a crime to publish conversations with certain health care providers, notably those associated with abortion facilities.

California has already squashed the rights of pro-life pregnancy centers, demanding they offer abortion as an option to their clients, despite their pro-life mission.
Now, Planned Parenthood and CA Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez think it’s a fine idea to prosecute someone from posting a “photo or video of an interaction with an abortion clinic employee or volunteer— including clinic escorts,” Life Legal Defense Foundation reports:
Planned Parenthood is sponsoring legislation in California to criminalize the publication of evidence of its business practices, which include harvesting and selling the body parts of aborted babies.
Assembly Bill 1671 would make it a crime to publish confidential conversations with certain health care providers—most notably, anyone affiliated with an abortion clinic. This means anyone who posts a photo or video of an interaction with an abortion clinic employee or volunteer—including clinic escorts—could be prosecuted under the bill. AB 1671 provides for penalties of up to $10,000 per violation and one year in state prison.
Gomez, who is behind the bill, is a strong companion of Planned Parenthood. The assemblyman has a 100 percent rating from the abortion giant, and is a recipient of Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles’ “Champion of Choice” award.
https://www.facebook.com/assemblymemberjimmygomez
From Jimmy Gomez’s Facebook:
I’m proud to stand with @PPActionCA today and everyday! #PPCapitolDay #AccessMatters — with Planned Parenthood Los Angeles at California State Capitol.
Undercover videos released by the Center for Medical Progress last year exposed Planned Parenthood’s barbaric baby parts harvesting practices, and placed the abortion giant’s public funding under national scrutiny.
Life Legal says the bill is an unconstitutional, direct assault on free speech, and on pro-lifers who have exposed the abortion giant’s egregious activities.
California legislators are willing to throw free speech under the bus to protect Planned Parenthood’s financial interests. Please urge your legislators to oppose this unconstitutional bill.
Pro-life organizations have used investigative journalism, in the manner of “60 Minutes” and other media outlets, to bring to light the atrocities hidden inside the abortion industry.
Yet investigative journalism is not limited to pro-life organizations. Other groups have come out against AB 1671, including the California Newspaper Publishers Association (CNPA). CNPA states:
The bill has been repeatedly pulled from hearing in the author’s attempt to sort out language that would remove the many opponents to the bill, including CNPA. Despite continued efforts to craft narrowly-tailored language that does not potentially capture journalists’ activity, the bill’s sponsor, Planned Parenthood, has been unwilling to squarely address CNPA’s concerns to protect the redistribution of an illegal recording that depicts a matter of high public interest.
The amendments to the bill have narrowed its scope which would target only recordings where one party to the recording is a health care provider. While this does narrow the bill, it still captures a significant net of newsworthy content. It still has a chilling effect. And it still violates First Amendment law.
On May 27, CNPA announced that “CNPA, California Broadcasters and the Motion Picture Association all oppose the bill,” and that the bill was “a content based regulation and presumptively unconstitutional.”

Source: LiveAction News

Ethics


 

Growing Human Embryos Outside the Womb: New Record, Old Questions

By David Prentice, Ph.D.
BraveNewWorldbookIn Aldous Huxley’s classic novel Brave New World, natural human reproduction has been replaced by laboratory-based methods. All children are conceived and grown in laboratory “hatcheries,” observed and in some cases manipulated during their gestation to predestine them for certain roles in society, and then “decanted” from their vats rather than born. There is complete control over what has become a manufacturing process, disconnected from nurturing as well as from the attitude that each individual human life is intrinsically valuable.

While still some distance removed from Huxley’s futuristic reproductive process, two research groups—one in the U.K. and one in the U.S.—have succeeded in growing human embryos in the laboratory for 13 days, almost twice the time that had previously been achieved and well beyond the developmental point (approximately seven days) that a human embryo would normally implant into the uterine lining.

The groups stopped the experiments (and destroyed the developing human embryos) only because they were approaching the “14-day limit,” an internationally-agreed-upon upper limit for the amount of time in which human embryos may be grown and experimented on in the laboratory. Now they want to go further. The shadow of Huxley’s Brave New World is growing, preceded by the attitude that embryonic humans are merely experimental fodder.

The research papers were published in the journals Nature and Nature Cell Biology (subscriptions required for full text.) Nature also published its own science news story, as well as a commentary on the scientific results (subscription required). But perhaps most troubling of all is publication of a proposal by several bioethicists advocating for expansion of the currently-recognized limit on the age allowed for experiments on human embryos.

The 14-day limit on laboratory experiments with human embryos has been adopted into law in at least 12 nations (including the U.K.) and included in ethical research guidelines in other countries (such as the U.S.). That particular time point was supposedly adopted because in the next stage of development, the embryo forms the primitive streak, the first sign of a rudimentary nervous system, and is also supposedly past the point at which twinning can occur.

But now the bioethical apologists claim that 14 days was “never intended to be a bright line denoting onset of moral status,” but was simply “a public-policy tool” that allowed policymakers to “carve out a space for scientific inquiry and simultaneously show respect for the diverse views on human-embryo research.”

The 14-day rule is indeed arbitrary. A zero-day limit would be the accurate biological marker, since fertilization delineates the beginning of the human organism. No human being should be used for lethal experimentation, no matter what age or stage of development.

But allowing experiments on human embryos beyond 14 days post-fertilization risks the lives of untold more human beings, in creation and destruction for research purposes. The deadly research on young human embryos has yielded no benefit; meanwhile, morally unproblematic avenues are delivering treatments and even cures for some of the most pressing health issues of our day. No potential, promising scientific results can justify lethal experimentation on any human being, especially the youngest and most vulnerable.

The “arbitrariness” of the 14-day limit can be seen in its success; it worked only as long as it was technically impossible to break. Now that it is possible to move beyond that length of time in human embryo culture, the limit is inconvenient.

There is no discussion about whether to proceed, only how to proceed, and what is the next expedient limit to set, until that new limit also becomes inconvenient. This is a risky venture which encourages further eugenic attitudes and actions.

There needs to be a pause for a deeper discussion about just why such research is being done, and if there are any ethical lines that should not be crossed. How many lives are worth sacrificing? One? One thousand? One million? The real question is not when human life begins, but when do we value any human life.

Editor’s note. This appeared at cmda.org and is reprinted with the author’s permission.

Source: NRLC News

Friday, May 27, 2016

Planned Parenthood


 

Providing PPFA with free advertising is media’s stock and trade

By Maria Gallagher, Legislative Director, Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation
ThinkPPIt can be argued that Planned Parenthood does not need a communications department, because there are plenty in the news media who are willing to promote the organization, free of charge, and without charging for overtime.
As if I needed another reminder, I recently ran head-first into another case of blatant media bias when it comes to the abortion giant known as Planned Parenthood.

The Scranton Times-Tribune this week ran a glowing endorsement of Planned Parenthood in an op-ed piece entitled, “Trained, ready to fight for freedom of choice.”
The author, Laura Quinones, spoke of her unbridled support of Planned Parenthood, including her enthusiasm for the Planned Parenthood Action Fund’s “largest volunteer training in history,” which took place in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This training, the activist writes, was to “make a difference in the 2016 elections and beyond.”

She further spoke of “reproductive rights” being “under attack,” and touted both the Roe v. Wade decision and abortion.
It occurred to me that this column screamed out for a response—especially given the fact that the newspaper’s home city, Scranton, was once dubbed the “pro-life capital of the U.S.”
I penned a letter to the editor making the following points:
1.) some gravely important facts were missing from the op-ed;
2.) the abortion giant performed more than 327,000 abortions in fiscal year 2014—a rate of one abortion every 90 seconds;
3.) a series of undercover videos have shown high-ranking Planned Parenthood officials blithely discussing the proposed sale of baby body parts while eating salad and sipping wine;
4.) Planned Parenthood receives $500 million taxpayer dollars a year while showing a complete unconcern for the health of women inside their mothers’ wombs.
An editor rejected my letter? Why? I hadn’t addressed what the columnist had said in her column, I was told.
But I had taken on the column head-on–noting its glaring omission of key facts—facts that could arguably change a person’s view of Planned Parenthood. Sometimes omission is a greater sin than commission, and I felt it was clearly true in this case.

The editor’s response to my retort was that abortions account for “3 percent of (Planned Parenthood’s) medical services.” That is an accurate regurgitation of a Planned Parenthood talking point. But it is incredibly misleading, since PPFA arrives at the figure by counting every STD test, every packet of pills given out, and even a woman’s initial pregnancy test as a separate service, even though these may all be bundled and sold together as part of the abortion.
And, oh by the way, abortion is PPFA’s largest profit center.

Perhaps this explains why Roe v. Wade has been able to survive for so long and why more than 58 million preborn babies have perished since the tragic 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The general public is shielded from the facts about abortion and Planned Parenthood by a news media that are willing to defend the abortion operation and its grisly trade at all costs, including balanced and comprehensive coverage of a controversial issue.

When I went to Northwestern, I was taught that journalism was a profession that was ennobled because it was dedicated to a pursuit of the truth. But the truth is absent in editorial pages that fail to include hard and fast abortion statistics and opt instead to present a pristine cheerleading piece about an entity that takes the lives of more children than any other, while ignoring the searing pain of women who mourn their dead babies.

No wonder the newspaper business is dying. They might have had 327,000 more subscribers, but Planned Parenthood aborted them—news the newspapers were not willing to print.

Source: NRLC News

Abortion


 

The CEO of the Royal College of Midwives must step down over this abortion scandal

By Peter Saunders
Editor’s note.. Dr. Saunders is a former general surgeon and CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship, a UK-based organization with 4,500 UK doctors and 1,000 medical students as members.
“BPAS” refers to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service– the nation’s largest abortion provider. This appeared here.
RoyalCollegeMidwivesThe Royal College of Midwives (RCM) has come under fire for backing the BPAS ‘We Trust Women’ Campaign, which advocates the decriminalisation of abortion up until birth.
RCM CEO Cathy Warwick gave her backing to the controversial campaign back in February, when she said that the campaign had the College’s ‘full support’.
This will surprise the 30,000 midwives who belong to RCM as they were not consulted at any point. Nor it seems was the RCM board.

98% of women in a 2012 survey said they opposed any rise in the abortion limit above 24 weeks so it seems that women in general are strongly opposed to Warwick’s position.
Furthermore, the RCM itself in the 1980s actually supported a lowering of the upper limit for abortion from 28 weeks to 24 weeks.
So how did an organisation, devoted to the safety through childbirth of both mother and baby, and with the motto ‘Life is the gift of God,’ come to such a place?
The answer it seems lies in its current leadership. Its CEO, who also chairs the abortion ‘provider’ BPAS, responsible for 65,000 abortions per year in Britain, is apparently waging something of a personal crusade.

Warwick’s proposal is to remove legal protection from babies between 24 and 40 weeks, allowing viable babies in the womb to be aborted for each and every reason.
In the UK about 8% of babies are born before 37 weeks (a normal pregnancy lasts 40 weeks), nearly 60,000 premature births every year. The vast majority of these survive and thrive, and in the best units like University College London, about 80% of those born at 24 weeks will live with good postnatal care.
How does one abort a baby at an age at which it would be born alive and almost certainly survive?
One has to kill it first in utero, normally with a lethal injection, or alternatively, remove it manually piece by piece. Chilling to think that midwives, trained safely to deliver babies and place them tenderly in their mothers’ arms, are now supporting their destruction at the very same age.
Abortion is contrary to every historic code of medical ethics. It is against the Hippocratic Oath, the Declaration of Geneva and the International Code of Medical Ethics. In 1947 the British Medical Association called abortion ‘the greatest crime’.

Two hundred midwives have already signed a letter ‘not in our name’ dissociating themselves from the RCM’s position and thousands more citizens have called on the College to abandon its policy.
Thus far the RCM has shown no sign of turning. It has published a statement on its website today replete with specious euphemisms claiming that it is the victim of ‘distorted and sensationalist accounts’.
But the legal position it is advocating is one where all legal protection for unborn children will be removed – a law like that of China and North Korea.
The RCM used to stand for women’s and children’s health. Now it seems to deny the humanity of the preborn baby altogether.

Any society will be judged by the way it treats its most vulnerable members and there is nothing more innocent and vulnerable than a baby in its mother’s womb.
Warwick is guilty of a blatant conflict of interests. She needs to step down either from the RCM, or BPAS but cannot continue in both positions.
Hopefully the board and members of the RCM, rather than complicitly closing ranks around her, will help her to do the decent thing.

Source: NRLC News

What Does It Mean to be Human


 

“What does it mean to be fully human?”–To love you as you are

By Dave Andrusko
Jean Vanier
Jean Vanier
Over the years contributors to NRL News Today have had the pleasure of writing stories about Jean Vanier, the founder of L’Arche , a community of people with intellectual disabilities and those who assist them, who share their lives together.

A friend forwarded a story that appeared last week in The Catholic Register about a new biography of the almost 88-year-old Catholic philosopher written by Michael Higgins. According to reporter Michael Swan, “Published in Canada by Novalis, Jean Vanier, Logician of the Heart has seen record-breaking pre-publication orders pour in to its American publisher, Liturgical Press.”
“I have no illusions that this has anything to do with the author,” said Higgins [at the Toronto launch of the book]. “It’s all about the subject.”
Higgins was asked how it is possible for Vanier to take “strong, uncompromising and unpopular positions” against, for example, physician-assisted suicide. Swan writes
Higgins’ answer is that Vanier knows how to state his case positively and in Christian charity.
“He shows us how you state your case without eviscerating, vilifying or diminishing those who hold other positions,” Higgins said.
The Vanier method of argument humanizes and ennobles everyone, he said.
“Here is a religious figure for whom the secular can find something admirable,” said Higgins.
When last we wrote about Vanier, he had just received the 2015 Templeton Prize, an award for promoting spiritual awareness.
Who is Jean Vanier? He is described (by the Independent’s John Litchfield) as a Catholic philosopher, and activist for those with mental disabilities whose “life’s work has been based on the conviction that the ‘strong need the weak.’” That would be L’Arche to which Vanier said he would give the 1.7 million prize money.
In a powerful piece written last year by Conor Friedersdorfmar that appeared in The Atlantic, Mr. Friedersdorfmar took the time to transcribe Vanier’s deeply inspirational remarks delivered when he received the award.
To be fully human is really to discover who I am. And who am I? I’m a member of the huge human family, where we’re all brothers and sisters wherever we come from, whatever our culture, whatever our religion. We were born in weakness. We will grow. And we will die. So the story of each one of us is a story of accepting that we are fragile.
To discover who I am is also to discover a unity between my head and my heart. The head we are called to grow, to understand, and to work through things. But the heart is something else. It is about concern by others. We are born into a relationship. And that relationship that we all lived is a relationship with our mom. We were so small. So weak. So fragile. And we heard the words which are the most important, and maybe the words we need to hear all our life: I love you as you are. You are my beloved son or my beloved daughter. And this is what gives consistency to people. They know they are loved. And that’s what they’re seeking, maybe for the rest of their lives.
So there’s the head, where we are called to understand and to deepen the laws of the world, of nature, and so on. But there’s also the heart. The heart is a very fragile part of us.
And terribly fragile in the little child. If the little child is not loved at the moment of his birth or the few months after there’s a deep, deep inner wound. And from that wound comes up anguish, from anguish comes fighting and wanting to win, and to prove that I am someone.
Fundamentally, to develop the heart is to see that in each person you are beautiful. You see, the whole thing with human beings is to learn to love. And to love is not to do things for people. It’s not to tell people what to do. It’s to reveal. What do we reveal? ‘You’re important.’ You might be important in the things you do. But there’s something even more important than what you do. It’s who you are. And who you are is something about your heart being open to others. A heart that is not filled with fear.

The problem today is that many people are filled with fear. They are frightened of people, frightened of losing. And because people are filled with fear they can no longer be open to others. They’re protecting themselves, protecting their class, protecting their group, protecting their religion. We’re all in a state of protection. To become fully human is to let down the barriers, to open up. And to discover that every person is beautiful. Under all the jobs they’re doing, their responsibilities, there is you. And you, at the heart of who you are, you’re somebody also crying out, “Does somebody love me not just for what I can do, but for who I am?”

So to be fully human is the development of the heart and the head, and then we can become one. One inside of us. Becoming one inside of us we can little by little let down the ego, the need to prove that I am better than you. And then I can begin to see in other people, other groups, other religions, other cultures, that people are wonderful. And then we can come and we can work for peace together.

Source: NRLC News

National Platform


 

National Right to Life congratulates GOP Platform Committee leadership

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin

WASHINGTON – The National Right to Life Committee today praised the selection of Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), and Gov. Mary Fallin (R-Okla.) as co-chairs of the Republican Platform Committee.
In selecting Sen. Barrasso, Rep. Foxx, and Gov. Fallin to head the Platform Committee, the Republican National Committee has sent a strong message that the pro-life planks in the Republican platform will steadfastly reflect commitment to the right to life, and that the GOP will proudly stand as the party of life,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life.
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.)
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.)
Sen. Barrasso has maintained a 100% pro-life voting record since joining the U.S. Senate in 2007. Rep. Foxx also has a 100% pro-life voting record, and has been a faithful and articulate leader for life as a member of the U.S. House. Gov. Fallin has been a stalwart defender of society’s most vulnerable members, first with a 100% pro-life record in the U.S. House, and now as a strong pro-life leader as governor of Oklahoma.
As governor, Mary Fallin signed into law 18 pro-life bills protecting unborn children and their mothers during these past five and a half years,” said Tobias.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)

As adopted in Tampa, Florida, in 2012, the current Republican platform reads, “Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.”
We applaud Sen. Barrasso, Rep. Foxx, and Gov. Fallin, and look forward to working with them to ensure that the pro-life values embodied in the Republican platform continue to move us toward a society that welcomes the vulnerable in life, and gives them the full protection of our laws,” Tobias added.

Sourcew: NRLC News

Thursday, May 26, 2016

Pain Capable


 

South Carolina becomes 14th State to enact Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

SCpaincapableactpassreWASHINGTON – South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) today signed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act – a bill that protects unborn children from abortions after 20 weeks fetal age, a point by which there is compelling evidence that unborn children are capable of feeling pain. South Carolina becomes the fourteenth state to enact this legislation, which is based on a model bill developed by National Right to Life.
South Carolina now joins thirteen other states in recognizing the humanity of the unborn child,” said Carol Tobias, National Right to Life president. “The smallest and most vulnerable members of our human family need our protection, and South Carolina has taken a vital step to save unborn children who are capable of feeling the excruciating pain of abortion.
The South Carolina Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act generally protects the lives of pain-capable unborn children from being killed by abortion. The law protects unborn children from 20 weeks fetal age, based on legislative findings that there is compelling evidence that an unborn child by that point (if not earlier) is capable of experiencing excruciating pain during the process of dismemberment or other abortion procedures.
South Carolina Citizens for Life and the pro-life grassroots network worked tirelessly against the militant abortion industry,” said Holly Gatling, executive director of South Carolina Citizens for Life. “Pro-life lawmakers prevailed, however, because of the dedication and hard work of the pro-life community. In addition to South Carolina Citizens for Life, the legislation was strongly supported by a coalition of the Catholic Diocese of Charleston, the South Carolina Baptist Convention, the South Carolina Association of Pregnancy Care Centers, and Palmetto Family Council.
Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a national version of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 36). A minority of pro-abortion Democrats blocked consideration of the bill in the U.S. Senate last September.
Basic compassion for human life demands that this legislation be enacted all over the country,” said National Right to Life Director of State Legislation Mary Spaulding Balch, J.D. “In our upside-down society, most animals have more rights than unborn members of the human family. We are thankful the South Carolina General Assembly and Gov. Nikki Haley have recognized their solemn duty in protecting the lives of the most vulnerable.”
Some of the extensive evidence that unborn children have the capacity to experience pain, at least by 20 weeks fetal age, is available on the National Right to Life website at www.nrlc.org/abortion/fetalpain and also here: www.doctorsonfetalpain.com.
South Carolina Citizens for Life has found a direct correlation in the enactment of pro-life laws and a dramatic 59% decline in the number of abortions in the state since 1988. A chart showing the decline can be found on the SCCL website.

Source: NRLC News