Herod, Planned Parenthood & Wise Men

Christmas time brings about many different ideas for gift giving to celebrate the season. Planned Parenthood has an idea that gift-certificates for abortion, is a great stocking stuffer. This brings to mind, King Herod, who told the Wise Men, that he too wanted to brings gifts to the child. Fortunately and angel warned them of Herod's true intent to kill the child.

This Christmas the new Herod, Planned Parenthood, also presents a gift to honor Christmas, by killing as many babies as they can, with abortion gift-certificates ... a gift-certificate which is actually a death-certificate. Herod would be so pleased.

2,000 yrs. ago, Herod, in his paranoiac rage, sent out his henchmen to slaughter the innocents. Today, Herod's henchmen are still out there, seeking to destroy the lives of innocent unborn children. So, this Christmas Season, instead of worship and adore, Planned Parenthood's aim is to search and destroy, just like their ancestor King Herod.

Only Wise Men know the difference.

Dilemma in Antioch

The case of a 27 yr old paralyzed man from Antioch, Illinois, has made national news. Paralyzed from the neck down, due to a car accident at age 3 ,he wants Froedtert Hospital to remove his ventilator.

He has battled the hospital for the last year and a half for this purpose. He says, "I have no friends - I have no education - no education prospects - no job prospects - I have no love prospects - all I want is to no longer live like this." He is physically incapable of ending his own life. "I feel I'm the only person in the country who does not have a way or an option to kill myself."

At Froedtert, hospital psychiatrists and mental health professionals say, he is depressed and must be treated for it, before they will consider his request. He says, his desire to die does not stem from his depression, but from his poor quality of life and the low odds that it will improve.

Depression is not uncommon for people with spinal cord injuries, who often struggle to gain control over their own lives. Their suicide rate is 2 to 6 times that of the general population. Their inability to end their lives themselves often compounds their sense of helplessness.

Disability rights activists argue that the quality of life doesn't have to be inherently bad, rather, they say, society doesn't provide the resources to live a satisfying life.

This young man is not dying. He is profoundly handicapped and totally dependent on others. Hospital records reveal that he has expressed concerns that his monetary problems and desire to help his mother are clouding his judgment. He refused any mental health treatment. He said, "It wouldn't change his decision and he couldn't afford the hassle and expense of visiting the hospital regularly for treatment." He has explored moving to a state where physician-assisted suicide is legal.

This is the dilemma that society is facing all over the country. Should non-dying but profoundly handicapped people be assisted to end their own lives? And should it be legal?

What ever happened to Ars moriendi?

Our Western society is focused on eternal life ... in this world only. We use health clubs and health foods to Botox, plastic surgery and organ transplants in order to enhance and prolong our earthly existence. Where is the focus on our spiritual existence? All religious denominations have suffered a decrease in fervor, understanding and practice. This focus on mere earthly existence has created new societal questions on how to face death, in an age which does everything to postpone it.

Now bioethics is forcing society to look at the "Art of Dying Well", and what that means? Could this mean legalizing euthanasia? Could this mean rationing in medicine? Could it mean altering what it means to be human? Just what are the ethics regarding these questions, and what is their main focus?

All of these questions led us to look up a long forgotten Latin text called Ars moriendi ("The Art of Dying"), dating from the Middle Ages and written within the historical context of the effects of Plague and the consequent social upheaval of the 15th century, which it caused. It was very popular, translated into most Western European languages, and the first in a Western literary tradition of guides to death and dying. It consisted of 6 chapters, which sums up the dichotomy between today's focus on death and dying, as opposed to the late Middle Ages.

The chapters speak for themselves:

1.) Explains that dying has a good side, and serves to console the dying man; that death is not something to be afraid of.
2.) Outlines the five temptations that beset a dying man, and how to avoid them .. ie .. lack of faith, despair, impatience, spiritual pride and avarice.
3.) Lists 7 questions to ask a dying man, along with the redemptive powers of Christ's love.
4.) Expresses the need to imitate Christ's life.
5.) Addresses the friends and family, outlining the general rules of behavior at the death bed.
6.) Includes appropriate prayers to be said for a dying person.

Compare the focus of these chapters to today's end of life concerns, and you will find a marked contrast between the two.

Follwoing Robby the Robot

The Hastings Center Report, for those of you who don't know, is the first bioethics journal celebrating 40 years of publication (or could you say medical indoctrination?). The journal is really all about euthanasia covered with a bioethics blanket.

The Hastings Center Report asked young scholars to write about what the next generation of bioethicists should take up? There were 195 submissions and 4 of the best were published.

"Picking the essays we wanted to publish turned out to be surprisingly difficult", said Gregory Kaebnick, editor of the Hastings Center Report. "We not only wanted good essays; we also wanted to represent the range of topics that people had written about and the range of people writing them up. But it's a good problem to have, of course, and it gives us great confidence about the future of bioethics." Here we go. 1.) "Establishing A Duty Of Care For Pharmaceutical Companies" 2.) "A Role For Moral Vision In Public Health" 3.) "The Art Of Dying Well" 4.) "The Challenge Of Regenerative Medicine"

Wow! That sums up medical ethics. Let's take "The Art Of Dying Well". In his essay, the point that one of the most pressing bioethical concerns is to create a framework for teaching an aging population to prepare for death and support on another through the dying process. In the article, Lydia Dugdale from Yale School of Medicine says, "American society remains ill equipped for the experience of of dying. Among the reasons are advances in medical technology, that have obscured the distinction between death and life, physician difficulty in discussing end of life issues with their patients, and the secularization of Western culture, which has marginalized the role of religion in preparing people for death."

All of this sounds good but, just like "the secret's in the sauce", the implementation of these noble principles may be delivered by Robby the Robot, whose learning ethics from ?

Robby The Robot Has Ethics? Whose Ethics?

Robots are now being programmed with "ethics" in order to make complicated moral decisions. One has to wonder whose "ethics" are the ones being implanted in Robby the Robot's artificial brain. Sound far fetched?

Philosopher Susan Anderson and her computer scientist hubby Michael Anderson, have teamed up in a new field of research, called "machine ethics". Using each of their different expertise they now claim to have programmed a robot to behave "ethically" We already have machines out there that are doing ethical tasks, such as automatic cash withdrawal machines. Many other robotics are still in the developmental stages, such as cars that drive themselves and elder-care robots. The approach has yet to develop far enough in order for the robots to weigh different obligations with satisfactory decision principles. So when several of the robot's directives pull in different directions, it will not be able to adequately distinguish between which one "ethical decision" is prime.

So, if Obamacare's ethics are the ones being implanted, or the "Hastings Institute", which is a think tank for euthanasia, are the ones which Robby receives in his computer brain, hmmmm?
Elder-care robots! Just in time for Christmas and Obamacare. Look under your tree. I wonder if Robby will be sitting on the death panel? Does this all sound like a science fiction novel gone mad?

Those of you who are old enough, may remember the movie "Forbidden Planet". In this story, monsters from the Id, or the primitive sub-conscious mind of man, create a moral dilemma for poor Robby the Robot. Poor Robby's robotic brain short circuits, when he is unable to distinguish which ethical decision to follow, because of the conflicted mind of his own creator.

There's a huge fly in the ointment when it comes to humans trying to program "ethics" into machines. Remember also the poor scientist in the movie "The Fly", who also does not see the fly which gets into his machine. Well, there's a lot flies out there. Whose the fly here? Whose "ethics" will be programmed into Robby? I hope it's not Donald Berwick, the Director of Medicare/Medicaid, appointed by, none other than the fly in the White House.

When Is It Ok To Pull The Plug?

Case in point ... a 27 yr. old local boy from Antioch, paralyzed from a car accident at the age of 3, who is only able to move his head, states, "He has no friends, no education, no educational prospects, no love prospects; all I want is to no longer live like this." Although he graduated high school and earned an Associate's degree from the College of Lake County. Later he gave up dreams of becoming a prosecutor because of the physical difficulties of attending a college away from home.

He has battled Froedtert Hospital to remove his ventilator. Hospital psychiatrist and mental health care professionals say he's depressed and must be treated before they will consider his request.

Depression is common with spinal cord injuries. This person is non-dying, but profoundly handicapped. He has been recognized by professionals as profoundly depressed. The question at hand, just like the Cruzan case, is this ... should a non-dying, profoundly handicapped person remove themselves from life support? The difference in this case, as opposed to the Cruzan case, is that the 27 yr. old is depressed but competent. In Cruzan's case, as she was unable to make her own decisions, her husband made the decision for her.

Both cases had and will have a profound influence on end of life decisions ... both morally and legislatively. This is the way euthanasia is being sold. It's an emotional appeal designed to bypass your rational thought and moral underpinnings. If this case proceeds and this young man non-dying but profoundly handicapped, kills himself because he finds life too difficult ...

This young man's restrictions to realize his dreams are obviously greater than the average. Yet, there are many of us who have had to alter our dreams when they became unattainable for whatever reason. If this young man can discount himself because he considers certain options of life to be beyond his reach, when will the next person who did not get to become an astrophysicist or an academy award winning actress, decide their life is too hard and they should end it? When does life stop having worth, no matter the options?

Civil Unions in Illions

"Everyone has a right to marry, but no one has a right to change the nature of marriage, marriage is what it is and always has been, no matter what a legislature decides to do; however, the public understanding of marriage will be negatively affected by the passage of a bill that ignores the natural fact that sexual complementarity is at the core of marriage." Cardinal George

Well the Catholics, as well as all the other denominations, didn't pay much attention to the Cardinal's words. Even worse, they didn't take in the meaning of what he said. Last night the Illinois House of Reps, passed a civil unions bill, which in Illinois law equates to a same-sex marriage.

It was incredible to watch as Speaker Michael Madigan, a Catholic, vigorously worked the floor during the debate, twisting the arms of members in order to secure legislators' votes for same-sex marriage. Illinois House of Reps. is now officially unable to make moral distinctions. And haven't we had enough of legislators who can't make moral distinctions?

Since the great sexual revolution of the 60's, we have had pleasure without consequences. Now we have subsidized pleasure without consequences.

Medical Ethics

In medicine, technology has surpassed ethics. In religion, relativism for the most part, has replaced doctrine. In advertising, there are no holds barred any longer. In airports, anything goes. While this opening may sound flip, what was once unthinkable, is now the norm. So too with the euthanasia movement.

In 1930 it was known as the Euthanasia Society of America. It's goal was to secure legalization of passive euthanasia (death encouraged by omission, through neglect of necessary treatment & care) leading to a patient's death. The goal of which, was to change public opinion on the issue, so that active euthanasia (death caused or hastened by the act of commission, using a lethal agent ) could be accomplished and legalized. I would say, they've accomplished their goals.

When wondering, if euthanasia is taking place, one has to look at what is the intent of the treatment, or lack thereof. Remember, euthanasia can be carried out by omission (passive) or commission (active). There is no moral difference.

We've come a long way since the 1930's. Today's debate is more sophisticated, but equally lethal.
We now have bio-ethical think tanks. These think tanks are shaping public opinion and religious beliefs, as well as legislative policy. They are embedded in government regulations, state and federal laws and ethical guidelines around the world.

Pope Benedict XVI discussed a fundamental problem with bio-ethics, in his address to the Pontifical Academy for Life. He said, "Some ethicists warn that modern bio-ethics is in fact a new normative system of ethics, that, based on principles of utilitarianism can never be compatible with Natural Law's principles. Under traditional medical ethics, the guiding principle is,"do no harm". But contemporary bio-ethics abandons this ... in an effort to find the utilitarian goal of the "greatest good for the greatest number". Under these principles, preserving the life of the human patient is not considered paramount."

More on ethics to follow.

Sarah Palin Right All Along

There is no doubt that health care costs are escalating. There are myriad reasons for this. To name a few, Americans are living longer, technology is increasing and the cost of drug research is rising.

National health care laws, where they exist, have produced rationing in order to treat the growing number of people who are covered. This is simple economics 101. The more you have to cover, the greater the cost. If costs are to be reduced, you need to reduce the number.

Remember Sarah Palin? The media had quite a day when she mentioned death panels, when the country was debating national health care under President Obama. Well now we have national health care - and guess what? New York Times columnist Paul Krugman addressed the subject of escalating health care costs. He stated on ABC's This Week, "Some years down the pike we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes." In fact, Mr. Krugman has written 19 columns mentioning death panels. Almost all of them have been smug. He has spoken previously of "death panel smear" and "death panel lie" and "the death panel people" as being part of a lunatic fringe.

Well, well, well. It seems as if Mr. Krugman came clean on ABC. His other 19 columns were apparently just a clever smoke screen in order to get health care passed. I think he's wanted death panels from the start. I wonder if he knows about eugenics?

Sarah Palin was right. National health care is wrong. National health care will economically and morally break the back of this country.

Some Choices Are Always Wrong And Have Consequences

WOW! In the UK, 67% of respondents to a recent poll, support legalizing euthanasia.
What's even more scary, is that 55% of those polled express the view, that people who assist terminally ill sons or daughters to end their lives, should not be punished, and 58% believe, "people who help a person to commit suicide should not be prosecuted."

Trial balloons in the United States are being floated, that it would be better to assist a person who has profound illness, or just debilitating illness, to commit suicide; either with medical assistance or a friend's "help". Letters to the editor are frequent. Heart wrenching as it may be, suicide is always the wrong choice. We need to remember that, no matter the tragic circumstances. It is always the wrong choice.

One goal of the euthanasia movement is to legalize assisted suicide. They would use the rationale, if we, or the person who wants to commit suicide, has their nutrition either withheld or voluntarily given-up, wouldn't it be more humane to simply legally, lethally inject, rather then allow the person to die of dehydration?

A recent book titled "Imperfect Endings: A Daughter's Tale of Life and Death" by Zoe Fitzgerald Carter, narrates the story of her mother who "chose" to end her life by dehydration. The author narrates how she herself comes to terms with her mother's "choice" to end her life, because she slowly comes to terms that the suffering person has rights. So in the end, she supported her mother's "choice" to end her own life.

We have to reject the mantra of "choice". Euthanasia protagonists have taken up this mantra of an individual's personal "choice", to blur and obfuscate the real issue, which is that there are some choices which are simply wrong.

The mental health and suicide prevention organizations need to take a stand against assisted suicide. Suicide is an unmitigated horror that is being soft-pedaled to the public, while putting vulnerable people at risk, as well as, destroying our medical and legal ethics.

Back to the Brits - British disability rights campaigner Alison Davis, who belongs to the disability rights group, "No Less Human". and who herself is disabled, states, "It is "sheer folly" to propose legal assisted suicide for the disabled, but to spend public funds on suicide prevention programs instead."

Lake County Right to Life Action Alert

Oppose Senate Bill 1716 - Civil Unions

Senate Bill 1716 will grant homosexual couples “the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections and benefits afforded or recognized by the law of Illinois to spouses.”

Children are the State’s #1 interest in Limiting ‘Marriage Status’ to Husband and Wife.

· Marriage is recognized – not created – by the state as both a personal relationship and institution.

· The government has legitimately defined marriage as an institution and has limited its membership.

· The state recognizes that marriage is centrally concerned about the children.

Senate Bill 1716 is a stepping stone to legalizing same-sex “marriage”.

“We are using the civil union bill as a foundation to go for equal marriage … That is exactly what we want!” said homosexual lobbyist Rick Garcia at a Joliet rally last year.

At a forum on same-sex marriage at the Chicago History Museum on September 14^th, lesbian State Representative Deb Mell said, that she was confident they have the votes to pass a civil unions bill.

“Gov. Quinn believes that gay and lesbian couples are entitled to the same benefits as heterosexual couples,” Quinn campaign spokesperson Mica Matsoff recently told the State Journal Register. “There is a bill in the legislature, and Gov. Quinn looks forward to signing it.”

The deadline for SB1716 has purposely been extended to Nov. 30^th during the lame duck veto session. If it passes the House, it will go back to the Senate. Inevitably, this kind of legislation will be used to teach about homosexual unions in all public schools.

Call Your Elected Officials – Tell them to vote No SB 1716

State Rep. Sandy Cole - 847-543-0062

State Rep. Ed Sullivan - 847-566-5115

State Rep. Jo Ann Osmond - 847-838-6200

State Rep. Mark Beaubien, Jr. - 847-487-5252

State Rep. Carol Sente - 847-680-5909

State Rep. Rita Mayfield – 847-623-0060

State Rep. Karen May – 847-433-9100

State Senator Dan Duffy – 847-277-7100

A Post Mortem of Illinois Elections

Some rambling thoughts on why we had minimal gains in Illinois, while there was a major landslide across the nation. The first thought that comes to mind is that the Democrats and their allies like Personal PAC framed the candidates. One has to ask why did the candidates allow that to happen? After all, Personal PAC has been sending nasty mailers in elections for many years. This year was no different. The Republican candidate for Governor was framed as a women hater, one that would even put abortive women in jail. After all, he voted against a mammogram bill that would save women's lives. Probably, worst of all, he didn't like equal pay for equal work. Even a rookie working a campaign knows those were all lies. No abortive woman would ever be put in jail. That is not what the pro-life movement is all about. There's already federal and state laws on the books that mandate equal pay for equal work. As far as mammograms, the vote was not against women, it was simply a vote not to require all insurance companies to cover this procedure. The vote was against government mandates, not women. So, that being said, why didn't the campaign frame the response to Personal PAC's attack.

On the other hand, did the pro-life movement as a whole counter Personal PAC's accusations? Personal PAC has been the cause of many conservative candidates losses. Surely the candidates and the movement can counter some of these anticipated accusations before they are made. In other words, did we fail to frame the issue, thereby allowing the other side to frame the issue?

As a pro-life movement, have we educated enough? The answer is clear. If a majority of women believe Personal PAC's accusations, the answer is obviously no. The next question comes to mind. What more could we do and why don't people know the truth? I personally don't think the pro-life movement has made Illinois a Democratic state. The voters made it a Democratic state and they hide behind misinformation from various sources, rather than seeking the truth.

How about the shepherds across denominational lines - where was the teaching on the sanctity of human life? Where was the teaching on the moral responsibility to vote and to inform ones conscience on the moral issues before voting? If I was a visitor from outer space visiting some churches, I might think they were a Democratic stronghold, rather than a house of God.

In Lake County Illinois, there are 404,637 registered voters, however, only 205,507 voted, that's 50.86% of voters in each precinct. You have to be kidding! That is no way to be an American. So, who's to blame. You tell me.

Why We Should Repeal Health Care, Not Amend It

There's a movement afoot again to use your taxpayer money for abortion under the guise of contraception in the health care bill. After all, with Senator Barbara Mikulski as the author of the women's health amendment in the now passed health care bill, the intent was to include family planning. The Senator is a pro-abortion feminist and there is far more than family planning in the health care bill.

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood is advocating for free contraception under the health care bill. Is birth control preventive medicine? The Food and Drug Administration classifies the morning-after pill as birth control along with Ella One, IUDs and implants, all of which are abortifacients.

Before everyone jumps on board with the idea that contraception is ok, we need to look at what the government means by covering "contraception." The fact that a pro-abortion senator and Planned Parenthood are pushing for this coverage ought to make most Americans think twice.

No one will argue that the morning-after pill, aka Plan B, is dangerous, especially to young women due to the fact that it has 40 times the hormonal content of one birth control pill. Recent studies show a strong indication that the hormonal content of the birth control pill has contributed to the meteroric rise in breast cancer.

So, if Plan B was bad, now Ella One. Marketed under the guise of contraception, it is really a dangerous abortifacient What you need to know is that the government approved and labelled this dangerous drug as a contraceptive, instead of an abortion pill that acts like the nefarious abortion drug RU486.

So the government's idea of contraception isn't really contraception, it's chemical abortion, and the're mandating taxpayer funding.

How Many Kids Will The Liberals Put In Jail?

In San Fran-sicko, they've outlawed happy meals (Hat tip to Brutally Honest):

San Francisco has become the first major U.S. city to pass a law that cracks down on the popular practice of giving away free toys with unhealthy restaurant meals for children.

San Francisco's Board of Supervisors passed the law on Tuesday on a veto-proof 8-to-3 vote. It takes effect on December 1.

The law, like an ordinance passed earlier this year in nearby Santa Clara County, would require that restaurant kids' meals meet certain nutritional standards before they could be sold with toys!

Just in time for Christmas, A new twist on Toy Story from the Dark Side. The eminent Board of Supervisors in San Francisco, has just made their city the first in the nation to take away free toys for children in McDonald's Happy Meals, because the meal they're eating is deemed too fattening.

Two days after the mid-term elections, and after having read ad infinitum Personal PAC's literature accusing pro-life candidates of wanting to put women in jail who have had abortions, a question comes to mind, regarding this logic and the new logic of banning toys in children's food.

If San Francisco is really serious about outlawing toys in Happy Meals, does that same logic equate? Are they saying that kids will be arrested for eating McDonald's food? If their logic concerning women being thrown in jail for having an abortion is a reasonable argument, does that mean we can apply the same reasoning to this new San Francisco ordinance?

You can't have it both ways guys. If pro-life candidates can be accused of wanting to put women in jail because of their opposition to abortion, then these food police must be subject to the same logic.

It seems really hypocritical that we live in a society where food can be outlawed, while the slaughter of millions of the innocent unborn is the protected law of the land. If we are truly concerned about the health and welfare of our children regarding what they eat, we should be just as concerned about their health and welfare, while they are still in their mother's wombs.

But more than this, pro-lifers are routinely subjected to the dual nonsensical arguments that either, a) they cannot be serious about protecting unborn life in law unless they advocate jailing women who seek abortions; or, b) they are just such horrid, evil, extremist ogres that they want to put poor innocent women behind bars for simply wanting to have control over their own bodies.

OK, so now the shoe is on the other foot: either the San Francisco Board of Supervisors isn't really serious about this measure, as evidenced by their refusal to throw kids in jail who buy Happy Meals, or else they are such evil, extremist, interventionist ogres that they want to put little Jimmy and little Mary (oops, sorry! San Francisco! -- little Atticus and little Moonglow) in San Quentin.

Come on you guys! Admit it! You'll be rounding 'em up like that creepy guy in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang before you're done, won't you?

(You'll be mandating condoms in Happy Meals next, too, won't you?)

Civil Unions Coming to Illinois?

Regardless of the outcome of the election on Tuesday, current state lawmakers are scheduled to return to Springfield, Illinois November 16-18 and November 29 - December 1 for a "veto session."

Governor Quinn (D) is on record, before the election, on whether civil unions could be legalized during these veto sessions. Quinn, known to be a strong supporter of civil unions, went on record to say: "The votes are there, I believe-in the Senate for sure, and definitely I think we can do it in the House."
It is important to know that victories by pro-family candidates on November 2, 2010 do not take effect until January 2011. So the veto session to complete unfinished state business will include both defeated and retiring lawmakers-legislators who will not be held accountable in the next election cycle.
Therefore, it is vital that we contact our current state legislator and ask him or her to vote against civil unions and to continue to preserve traditional marriage between one man and one woman. Ask them to vote "NO" on SB 1716. Same-sex civil unions are a steppingstone to same-sex marriage. The Illinois SB1716 makes "party to a civil union" the same as "spouse" in every part of Illinois law. It equates marriage and civil unions by making the actions for dissolution identical for both. SB1716 also says that a marriage between persons of the same sex legally entered into in another jurisdiction shall be recognized in Illinois as a civil union. Thus a same-sex marriage solemnized in Massachusetts would be considered a civil union in Illinois. (More information on this bill can be found at our website; www.ifrl.org/lake.) Civil unions and same-sex "marriages," will destroy marriage as we know it. Voters across the country have strongly rejected same sex marriages. Thirty states have passed defense of marriage amendments to their constitutions.

Let's do our part to stop this legislation in Illinois! Please call your state representative now. Their phone numbers are on the left. We cannot afford to let this bill get to Governor Patrick Quinn's desk, as he has made it clear that he will sing it.

Quick Reads

Here are a few worthwhile reads on health care:

Health Care Reform: An Update.
Medicaid Expansion will Bankrupt the States.
Concerns About Adoption of Electronic Health Records.

And a commercial done by some Docs4PatientCare colleagues of mine:



4 more days and the next campaign begins. REPEAL!!!

May Flights of Angels lead Dr Mildred Jefferson to Her Rest

For the many people who may not remember Dr Mildred Jefferson, here's a little history of the early days in the pro-life movement, and one woman's role. Mildred died on Friday October 15th, but her legacy will live on forever. Just like Rosa Parks, she made a mark on her time.

Mildred broke the barriers of her day in 1951, when she became the first Black woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School, and then the first female surgical intern at Boston City Hospital. Later, she became the first female doctor at Boston University Medical Ctr. Have you seen her obituary anywhere? Most people will answer no. Why not? Because Mildred Jefferson lived her life as a pro-life hero.

In 1970, the American Medical Association resolved, that member physicians could perform abortions ethically in states where the procedure was legal. Mildred Jefferson rose to the occasion. She saw the American Medical Association's position, as an abandonment of the Hippocratic Oath, which admonishes doctors to "do no harm". In fact, Mildred said, "I am at once a physician, a citizen and a woman, and I am not willing to stand aside and allow this concept of expendable human lives to turn this great land of ours into just another exclusive reservation where only the perfect, the privileged and the planned have the right to live," she said.

Dr. Jefferson became a co-founder of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), serving as vice-chairman of NRLC's board, and then as chairman and then president from 1975 to 1978. She was a crucial lynch-pin in the early years which developed the right to life movement as we know it today.

During her tenure at NRLC, Mildred stressed the necessity for the pro-life movement to be a broad based coalition in defense of human life. She said, "We come together from all parts of our land, we come rich and poor, proud and plain, religious and agnostic, politically committed and independent ... the right to life cause is not the concern of only a special few, but it should be the cause of all those who care about fairness and justice, love and compassion and liberty with law."

In the annals of the pro-life movement, few will ever influence the movement as Mildred did, and continues to do. She was not quiet about racial genocide. She will take her place alongside other Civil Rights heroes.

A Nobel Peace Prize Modeled After Henry Ford's Assembly Line

A Nobel Prize has been awarded to Robert Edwards, who is known as the father of the test-tube baby, and the inventor of in-vitro-fertilization (IVF). His Nobel prize was awarded for Physiology or Medicine for his IVF work.

What exactly is IVF, and why is there a controversy over the awarding of this Nobel Prize? Starting at the beginning; in-vitro-fertilization is literally fertilization in a glass. Why? Because the uniting of the sperm and egg is done in a petri dish. The sperm is most often obtained from masturbation; while obtaining the egg is more complex. Medicine can use powerful drugs to hyper-stimulate the ovaries, so that multiple eggs can be produced for harvesting. After fertilization, in the dish, the embryos are grown, checked for defects and often screened for sex and physical characteristics. The participants in IVF then choose, how many embryos to implant in the woman's uterus. Another technique for reproductive success is to implant an embryo or embryos, in a surrogate's womb. Henry Ford, the inventor of the assembly line for the Model T, would be proud. Now comes another dilemma. The embryos who appear normal are usually frozen for later use; although the participant may choose to discard any unused embryos.

To think that this technique of IVF is making dollars for clinics. I'm sure none of these dollars are being spent if there are complications for the woman; and there are complications. These complications go far deeper than mere physical. With IVF we have turned human beings into mere market products. Where's the natural process here, and how does that affect the woman's female physiology? It's all technology.

And what about the risks? IVF pregnancies carry a higher risk of ectopic pregnancies, as well as gestational diabetes for the mother, high blood pressure and bleeding, not to mention the severe health risks to the babies. More importantly, during the process, the parents are repeatedly put in the position of consenting to the death of one or more of their children because of an embryo who may have a defect or the wrong sex, or simply perceived as "superfluous".

Now, our society has awarded the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Robert Edwards, inventor of the IVF. Commenting on the prize, Bishop Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said, "Without Edwards, there would be no market for human eggs; without Edwards, there would not be freezers full of embryos waiting to be transferred to a uterus, or more likely; used for research or left to die, abandoned and forgotten about by all." This is another example of medical science taking advantage of the heartbreak of humanity, by pitting the rights of the infertile parent against the rights of the child. Cardinal Antonellie, speaking on the Church's position on IVF stated, "The rights of a child dictates that a person cannot be produced, acquired and owned as an object for ones own self gratification".

Reasons why the Nobel Prize should not have been awarded, says Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro-Carambula who said, "The scientist is regarded as a hero, but what he has really done is to create a market for manufactured humanity. This is not a gift to humanity; it is a death sentence to millions of tiny human beings, who are created only to be destroyed. Edwards' supposed great accomplishment has also created a means for the ultra-rich to tamper with every genetic aspect of the person, creating designer human beings." Brings to mind Henry Ford, who created an assembly line for his designer Model T car. This is a Nobel Peace Prize on a par with Al Gore and his desire to save the environment by eliminating humanity.

Planned Parenthood Silent on RU486 Complications

If you are a woman, do you really trust Planned Parenthood to be your medical advocate? Before anyone considers any medicine or medical procedure, shouldn't they participate in their own health care decisions? So why do women blindly trust that Planned Parenthood has their well being at heart?

On September 28, 2000, the Clinton Administration launched it's chemical warfare attack on unborn Americans, announcing that the FDA had approved RU486. Predictably, Planned Parenthood hailed this new chemical coat hanger. RU486, as a total victory for US women. Gloria Feldt, then president of Planned Parenthood, proclaimed that RU486's US arrival marked the "beginning of a new era" for American women. Since it's approval RU486 has not been in the best interest of women, much less their unborn children. In the first 8 years, the estimates were 900,000 babies killed.



Ten years later, and The Center for Disease Control has now revealed in the New England Journal of Medicine, that there has been 2 more deaths from RU486. This chemical abortion, in the form of a pill, has caused numerous complications - not only killing off the baby, but killing off the mothers as well, while Planned Parenthood continues a cover up that Al Capone would have been proud of.


Across the ocean in Australia the Aussies have reported a 4.1% complication rate, while in the US Planned Parenthood remains silent. A zero complication rate is statistically impossible. Even aspirin has complications for some.

In Iowa, a Planned Parenthood clinic is performing Telemed abortions. This method allows a doctor to interview a woman via an Internet video connection. After a brief interview, the abortionist pushes a button, opening a drawer the woman finds what she thinks is the answer to her problem. But it may be her death pill. It certainly is a death pill for her unborn baby. Is that the medicine American women believe is good for them? RU486? Are you stupid?

Scary Euthanasia Stories for Halloween.

Boo! Need any scary stories for Halloween? The news is full of scary ideas for this Halloween season. Guess it's that time of the year. Halloween sarcasm aside; trial balloons are being floated over the euthanasia issue, under the guise of compassion. First, in England, a well-know British pundit, by the name of "Ms Ironside" (no joke), has suggested it would be kinder to smother a disabled child than to allow it to suffer or cause inconvenience to it's parents. She actually states, "Any good mother would smother a disabled child with a pillow because of the frustration that bringing up such a baby would pose." Are you scared yet?

She'd rather kill someone than go out of her way to help someone! Heaven help us! This is the utilitarian ultimate! It brings to mind a statement, "better dead than disabled"; and our society seems to be heading down that scary road. If you believe that all social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering, we ought then to take note of such scary ideas as this, coming out of Britain. Are ya scared yet?

In the US, Dr. Tonimarie Vincent of N. Carolina, states, "A death panel is one doctor. The American public does not understand this. You can go into an emergency room for an acute condition, and if you have a chronic diagnosis that already exists, the doctor will look at you, and if you're elderly, or you don't have the right insurance, they'll simply say: "Well, it's just not worth treating the patient." "That's the death panel. Therefore, they're executing the futility protocol and they're saying: "This is a futile case, the patient is going to die anyway, they have a chronic condition, forget the acute condition that brought them in here, let's just not treat them." "So, whether the health care provider practices slow medicine, exit treatment or whatever, they just won't provide the patient with the care they need." Scared yet? " Quoting a line from the movie "The Fly", you better - "be afraid, be very afraid!"

Oh Come Oh Come Rahm Emanuel

Is Rahm Emanuel on a mission to ransom captive Chicago. On second thought, is his mission to hold Chicago ransom for the Democrats in 2012. It seems a little strange that Rahm, who knows election law as well as electioneering, would think that he could win the mayoral election. However, stranger things have happened in Chicago, especially when the dead vote, early and often.

All Kidding aside, Rahm Emanuel is a highly intelligent and formidable foe. He knows how to play politics well. His job with Obama was secure, we think. His ambition has always been to be the Speaker of the House of US Representatives. Hmmmmm. In the lyrics of John Lennon ... "Imagine". Hmmmmm. Why has he really returned? What is the rest of the story? Skull duggery is my guess.

Rahm Emanuel is brilliant, vulgar, pro-abortion and a true Democrat. The Democrats are an endangered species for the 2010 mid-term elections. This makes it imperative that Chicago votes correctly (that's democratic) in 2012. Not sure if Obama will be the party pick. But let's say he is; he's counting on his good friend to bring home the vote in Chicago.

I'd be interested in what other people think. Let me know.

College Campuses Become A Battle Ground

Today college campuses have become a battleground for abortion. Forty-six percent of all abortions are performed on college aged women. Planned Parenthood's advertising and activities, aside from targeting minorities, is also aimed at college aged students, and targets youth, to promote their agenda.

Students for Life of America has risen to the challenge. They work with more than 541 pro-life campus groups nationwide. This year alone they expect to start 80 new groups. Students for Life has hired 4 new field agents, to train and identify pro-life students for leadership, in the pro-life movement on campus.

Students for Life connect students to the larger pro-life movement. They have established 2 national programs to train for full-time pro-life leadership. They have witnessed incredible growth and success, because their generation is pro-life and ready to save lives.

This generation has seen the effects of abortion in our nation. Many of them have had abortions, or participated in the abortion of others. They understand the humanity of the unborn child. They are witnesses to 4-D ultrasound technology, which clearly shows the unborn child.

If the torch is to be passed, and we know it needs to be, let's support every effort of Students for Life.

Eugenics Came First Nazis Came Second

The eugenics movement actually began a long time before Hitler's National Socialist movement (the Nazi Party) came to power. In 1883 Darwin came up with his evolutionary theory. This was later expanded upon by his cousin Sir Francis Galton, who coined the term, "eugenics". Farther back in time, the Greek Spartans were encouraged by their philosopher Plato, to kill off their weak children. These same practices have continued throughout history, such as the Eskimos who put their aged and infirm on ice floats, and set them adrift. Other aboriginal tribes would kill off their firstborn child if it was a female. A practice China continues today.

Moving up to the early 20th century, in the United States, our own Margaret Sanger joined the mantra of the eugenicist's ideology of racial supremacy and "purity". Eugenicists of the early 20th century envisioned a world where racial purity would be established through encouraging the "fit" to reproduce, while discouraging the "unfit" to inhibit reproduction. They sought segregation, sterilization, birth-control and abortion to eradicate, what they deemed, inferior races.

Hitler's National Socialist movement were actually late-comers, who did not jump on the band-wagon until 1941, with their' Lebensborn program. This program began a sort of "human farm" where young male soldiers with the Waffen-SS, thought to be the purest Aryan stock, were brought together with blonde-haired, blue-eyed Aryan women, to breed more human citizens for their new master-race.

Hitler's violent approach to the eugenicist movement with his extermination of millions in his death camps, forever tied the Nazis with eugenics. This has wrongly given people of today the idea that eugenics is only related to the Nazis of WW II Germany. However, in 1973 eugenics became the law of the land in the U.S. It started with abortion, then went to the medically disabled, now is attacking the elderly and only God knows where it will end. Make no mistake. The Nazis are not the inventors of eugenics, or the only ones to perpetrate it's evil upon the human race.

New Info on Abortion & Women's Brains

In a September 20th issue of Public Discourse, Professors Evelyn Birge Vitz and Paul Vitz wrote an article titled Women, Abortion and the Brain. This article is a result of teaching a course where considerable time was spent in discussing women's stories about there abortions, mostly found on a pro-abortion website. Their comments are heartbreaking. Many of these women are in deep pain, even years after their abortions. They are unable to to cope and continue grieving.

Most of the women who have strong reactions were not opposed to abortion and many were actively pro-abortion. They were "blind-sided" by their own strong reaction. "One woman lamented - and thousands of others echo her anguish - "If this was the right decision, why do I feel so terrible?"

After viewing the website and listening to women discussing their abortions, the authors began to think, "It seems likely that the brain itself - in particular, the nature of women's brains - may shed some particularly useful light on this unexpected negative emotional reaction." The authors continue looking at research into women's and men's brains, especially the differences related to emotion, stress and memory. "Women experience emotions largely in relation to other people: what moves women most is relationships. Females are more personal and interpersonal than men."

The authors conclude that "though a woman can decide rationally to have an abortion...a terrible and shocking reaction sets in after their abortion. Often what lasts is not the relief or the power of the logical arguments: these may prove very short-lived. It is, rather, the failed, betrayed relationship between the woman and her fetus - now, in her mind, her dead baby - that has staying power."

The authors call for a greater honesty from the medical profession toward women contemplating abortion to "prevent at least some women from having to experience this painful surprise. Women need to be told the truth. They need to be prepared for what may be the consequences of this major life decision. This is what informed choice means."

It's about time that society realizes that abortion hurts women in ways we are only now realizing. Even adamant pro-abortion women, after their abortions, find themselves dealing with emotions they cannot explain. Perhaps much of the dysfunction in our families and society revolve around a refusal of the medical profession to acknowledge that abortion has emotional and biological consequences that impact women and prevents their healing.

Right Nation 2010

Bonnie & Paul at Right Nation 2010!

See more at Thoughts of a Regular Guy.

When John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, two years ago, he sent a clear message to the Republican Party. The message, not articulated in the public square, but certainly understood in conservative circles, in order for Republicans to win, they needed a woman, a conservative and a very active pro-life proponent for their leadership. No more RHINOS!! My Gosh! What followed was an avalanche of major media mud slinging. Every time she appeared, they attacked. Even her simple geographical statement, that she could see Russia from her back window, was vilified. They made her appear as if she was a blithering female idiot. My gosh! Even many in the Republican Party got their Fruit of the Looms in a bunch.

In reality, what the media and the RHINOS were attacking, was her stand and commitment on the pro-life issues. Sarah Palin was a threat to their staunch support of abortion. Just this week the country viewed the results of a primary election in Delaware, where two Republican candidates went head to head on the ballot. One candidate, who had held office for a long time, but betrayed the platform of his party by voting for pro-abortion legislation, gun control and Cap and Trade, was confident he would win. He was backed by the majority of his party. However, both the party and the candidate, figured they could ignore the will of the people. The other candidate was a woman and a newcomer, supported by the Tea Party, who knew the value of life; very much like Sarah Palin. In fact Sarah Palin endorsed her, and much to the surprise of the Party regulars, Christine O'Donnell won.

Why? Because Christine O'Donnell, like Sarah Palin before her, reflects the values of our country. They understand the Founding Fathers and they've read the Constitution.

The Tea Party movement recognizes that values trump dollars. The defining issue for our time is the issue of abortion. Until that issue is resolved and legal protection restored for the most vulnerable of our society, no other problem will be solved. Abortion is a major issue in the upcoming election. Both Parties need to recognize the will of the people on this issue. Just like our ancestors, the early American colonists who felt ignored by England, today's American is once again getting tired of being ignored.

Is The Donor Really Dead Or Just Dead Enough

This week on the cover of Canada's National Post came a long overdue discussion on whether the organ donor is alive or dead. Organ donation has been debated since 1981, when the definition of death was changed to the notion of "brain death". Actually, the Universal Definition of Death Act (UDDA) had to be passed by every state in the US. This Act defined "brain death" as a definition of death used only for organ donation.

On Wednesday, in Canada, a group of doctors have called on the medical community to stop harvesting organs from patients whose hearts have stopped beating. The physicians say that many doctors are misleading families to believe that the patient died, when in fact, the patient is still alive.

Eight pediatric intensive care specialists, writing in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, said, "A long standing tenet of ethical organ donation is, that the nonliving donor must be irreversibly dead at the time of donation." The authors explain that organs were originally taken from cadaveric donors, who died in the conventional way, irreversibly losing all electrical and mechanical activity from the heart (circulation), and all brain function, despite medical efforts to save them.

However, this method of organ procurement created a problem for organ transplantation. If the patient died in the conventional way, then at the time of irreversibility, so did most of the organs.

Enter 1991 and the Pittsburgh Protocol, which was developed to allow doctors to harvest the organs of adults, after the person's heart had stopped for a certain period of time. This protocol involves removing the patient from life support for 30 to 60 minutes in the operating room. If the patient's heart continues to beat after that period of time, they are returned to the ICU. But, if the heart stops for a prescribed period (around 2 minutes, ranging from 75 seconds to 10 minutes depending on the jurisdiction), the organs are harvested. The authors continue, "No efforts are made to access the patient's brain function at the time of organ removal. The claim is that circulation has irreversibly stopped after 2 mins. of observation."

The authors allude to the point that it's possible that a doctors desire to prolong lives through organ transplants, can "foster physician and institutional bias" for the cardiac death criteria.

Knowing these facts, it may be wise to investigate before you sign the back of your driver's license; which in Illinois makes you a first person donor, and no other consent is needed.

Lake Zurich Demonstration Peaceful

From the Daily Herald:

A planned abortion protest Wednesday in Lake Zurich proceeded without incident.

Members of the Pro-Life Action League exercised their right to free speech at the busy corner of routes 12 and 22, and police were satisfied conditions regarding how the message was delivered were met in a cooperative manner.

"In a nutshell, everything went fine today," Police Chief Patrick Finlon said. "It was never about them not being able to do it. It was about us setting some guidelines."

Members of the group had assembled July 15 at the same corner. At the time, some protesters disrupted traffic flow by entering the roadway and others entered a private parking lot to place literature on windshields leading to a dispute with a store owner, according to Finlon.

Nothing of that nature occurred Wednesday, as the group held signs on the sides of the road at the corners of the intersection. Police were present for the 90-minute event and Finlon dropped by at one point.

"We did have a very cordial conversation," said Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Chicago-based group, which has been holding periodic protests at the same Lake Zurich location for 10 years.

Scheidler said the group agreed not to put fliers on windshields, and added there was no reason to be uncooperative, as the subject is controversial enough.

"You've got to pick your battles," he said during the event. "This is a peaceful mission. There's no point in adding trouble to a troubling situation."

Aside from a 10-day stretch in July, the group holds protests once a month in different locations. After Lake Zurich on Wednesday, protesters moved to the Route 60/45 intersection in Mundelein.

"In some towns where they let us, we'll handbill," explained Corrina Gura, projects coordinator for the group and a 2001 graduate of Lake Zurich High School.

"It depends on the town and how they feel about it." Handbills were not allowed in Mundelein.

Finlon said he wanted to get an estimate of the number of protesters so resources could be properly deployed. That information was provided in advance.

About 50 protesters were in Lake Zurich. About three dozen displayed signs, some with graphic content regarding abortion.

The group included Liz Cassidy, a mother of eight from Fox River Grove. Two of her kids, Beth, 12, and Tom, 11 held signs along Route 12. Fourteen-month-old Jane was in a stroller.

"We're not here to make any trouble," Cassidy said. "It's awareness."

And as usual, the commenters on the article demonstrate a typical level of pro-abortion hate.

Ponnuru: Life Still Important

Writing at Politico, Ramesh Ponnuru argues that candidates who are pro-life on abortion are still benefiting at the polls this year:

The Republican primaries suggest that while, of course, economic issues are at the top of most people’s minds, conservative voters still care a great deal about social issues.

It seems clear that social-issue positions were crucial to the outcome of several high-profile races. Abortion was crucial to Joe Miller’s narrow victory over Sen. Lisa Murkowski in Alaska. He is pro-life and she is pro-choice — facts that moved the man who served under her father as lieutenant governor to endorse Miller. A pro-life ballot initiative boosted his turnout.

Carly Fiorina’s pro-life position helped her parry primary challengers to her right and left in California. Social conservatives, who might have preferred Chuck DeVore, backed her to fend off the pro-choice Tom Campbell.

Christine O’Donnell is famously socially conservative. Can anyone maintain with a straight face that she would have beaten Mike Castle if she had been pro-choice or he had been pro-life? One reason establishment candidates like Kelly Ayotte and Dan Coats beat back Tea Party challengers is that they are social conservatives.

The presidential wing of the party seems to be moving right rather than left on social issues. The top candidates at the moment are Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels. All oppose abortion, embryo-destructive research and same-sex marriage.

Read it all here.

Voters are a complex mix of issues. The Tea Party has not destroyed the electoral power of social conservatism. On the contrary, we're re-energized like never before, and our voices will be heard and votes counted in 2010 and 2012.

Planned Parenthood

Wow! Abortions up 6% and adoptions down - latest factsheet from Planned Parenthood's Federation of America. Margaret Sanger would be so proud. After all, most of those clinics are strategically placed in low-income neighborhoods. The new Planned Parenthood figures show they performed 324,008 abortions in 2008. This represents a 6.1% increase over the 305,310 abortions in 2007. Approximately 1.2 million abortions are done annually in the United States; either by surgery or chemically.

If each of the women, who aborted at Planned Parenthood in 2008, paid what was the going price for abortions in 2005, Planned Parenthood would have reaped $133 million in income. And this assumes, that all of the abortions were standard first-trimester suction abortions. And we know that there are Planned Parenthood clinics which advertise and perform more expensive chemical and late-term abortions.

There are a few other figures from Planned Parenthood's factsheet worth noting: Planned Parenthood says it has more than 825 clinics and more than 30,000 staff members and volunteers. They also claim, that they have more than 4 million active supporters and donors.

The most disturbing claim from the factsheet, "seventy-two percent of our clients have incomes below 150% of the federal policy level." Ponder - with Planned Parenthood's recent efforts to build new upscale mega-clinics, Planned Parenthood has reached out to a wealthier clientele, yet their customers are still drawn predominantly from poorer clientele. We've heard of "The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer." Well, now the rich are getting richer, and genocide is what the poor are getting. Wake up America! Planned Parenthood is not for family planning. It is the number 1 abortion provider in America, making hundreds of millions of your tax dollars, off of abortions.

Abortion As Seen By A Child

People like to claim that abortion is a complicated issue. It's not. Even a child can understand it, and explain it.



(H/T: Creative Minority Report)

(Cross-posted to: Thoughts of a Regular Guy)

Suicide Prevention Day for Some

September 10th is "Worldwide Suicide Prevention Day". I truly hope all suicide is preventable. That being said, many in our society are promoting suicide rather than preventing it, with an agenda of legalized assisted suicide. Is that double talk, or is it double talk? Our society is schizophrenic. One problem is what do young people think? On the one hand, the schools are ringing their hands about the problem of teen suicide, while on the other hand, many are working diligently to promote death with dignity, as they term it, in the name of Compassion and Choices. What choice? It seems to me that there should only be one choice, and that's to prevent suicide by any means, for every age level. According to Wesley J. Smith, after he viewed the Worldwide Suicide Prevention website, he stated, "We have become a world in which meaningless symbols offer matter more than effective action. Not only does Worldwide Suicide Prevention Day not tackle the problem of suicide prevention in society - it suggests we engage in gesture advocacy to show how much we care." This statement came after Mr. Smith saw, on the website, a new event called, "Light a Candle on Worldwide Suicide Prevention Day". This event will be held on the evening of September 10th. Even though Mr. Smith believes this to be a meaningless and ineffective gesture, perhaps if the promoters of legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia lit a candle, it might dissuade them from their obsession with assisted suicide as a solution to social problems. These social problems in a civilized society can be solved without encouraging the taking of one's life. That's despair. A candle is hope. At the very least it draws attention to the matter, and starts people thinking. So, while Mr. Smith contends lighting a candle is simply a "feel good" symbolism, rather than an effective action, the website states, "We are hoping this activity will bring light into the world and increase awareness of the good work so many people do in preventing suicide." Before there can be effective action, people must be motivated and educated on an issue. The issue of suicide must be prevented to the best of society's ability. Lighting a candle can be a beginning in showing that suicide can never be condoned for some and preventable for others.

Abortion Clinic Director Fakes Bomb Threat Against Her Own Clinic

In the combox of a post on my own blog I've been arguing about whether liberals or conservatives are more violent. Here's yet another example to weaken his position: Reports of conservative violence are often greatly exaggerated (H/T:Creative Minority Report):

Investigators said Linda Meek reported on Aug. 13 that a bomb had been placed in a trash can at Reproductive Services of Tulsa, according to documents filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Tulsa. The clinic, which was bombed twice in 1997, and an adjacent building were evacuated, but a bomb technician determined that a suspicious box in the trash can was not an explosive.

Meek, who left her position with the clinic after the incident, is charged with conveying false or misleading information, according to the documents. Meek, 63, is scheduled to make an initial court appearance in federal court on Thursday. She faces up to five years in prison if convicted.

Some pro-life advocates said they believe Meek may have been trying to mislead authorities and the media, to portray abortion opponents as violent fanatics who will stop at nothing to end the practice.

Republican state Rep. Mike Ritze, who supports pro-life legislation, said the bomb scare is part of a growing trend among abortion activists to represent opponents as violent and dangerous in order to divert public scrutiny from themselves

(Cross-posted from Thoughts of a Regular Guy.)

Calling Al Gore

Al, it's too late to pick up your phone. You missed your opportunity to be a hostage negotiator. A radical environmentalist, who is a fan of yours, held hostages at the Discovery Channel on September 1, 2010. Why? Well, he thought the planet was overpopulated. James J. Lee went to the Discovery Channel to make a point. This is not the first point he has made with the Discovery Channel. First identified in 2008, by the Discovery Channel employees, he was arrested during a protest and served 2 weeks in jail. This time around Lee expressed his intention to force the network to discourage overpopulation and the "human filth" of new children, particularly among immigrant populations. Hmmmmmm. Sounds like Margaret Sanger in a masculine reincarnation. Lee stated, "he experienced an awakening, when he watched former Vice-President Al Gore's environmental documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth". Poor Mr. Lee, he was shot dead by the police. One wonders why someone didn't call Al Gore to be a Hostage Negotiator? Before he was shot dead, he gave a list of demands, that were published on the "savetheplanetprotest.com" website. In these demands, he sought television programming from the Discovery Channel, to show "how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution." "Saving the planet means saving what's left of the non-human Wildlife. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies ... It is the responsibility of everyone to preserve the planet they live on by not breeding any more children who will continue their filthy practices." His rant continued. He emphasized that immigrant populations and their "anchor baby filth" must also be stopped, and that Darwin's theory of evolution and the Malthusian theory of overpopulation must be reiterated" until it sinks into the stupid people's brains until they get it." Wow! That's an inconvenient rant! Where's Al Gore to repudiate this poor soul's inconvenient perception of Al's Inconvenient Truth? What is the matter with our media, that they only covered the hostage situation, and not the reason why poor Mr. Lee went off the deep end? Perhaps they were with Al on his iceberg that's crashing into the Bering Sea.

A Pro-Life Mandate for Congress

Check out this great piece at Illinois Review (an excerpt):

Once again, much like 1994, the Republican Party has an opportunity to take back Congress and is drafting a legislative blueprint similar to the original Contract with America to lay out its plans should Republicans take the majority this November.

The protection of women and their children from the violence of abortion and the protection of taxpayers from funding it must be an integral part of any legislative blueprint released by the leadership of the GOP, and should be included under a specific plank addressing family values.

Speak out for Life today by telling the Republican Party leadership that pro-life legislation must be a priority in its legislative blueprint for America.

With the majority of Americans identifying themselves as pro-life, and with an even stronger majority agreeing that tax dollars shouldn't fund abortion, the consensus for passage of serious pro-life legislation couldn't be stronger.

Consider these common-sense pro-life legislative initiatives that enjoy broad support across America:

• Legislation such as the “Protect Life Act” which would ensure that no federal funds authorized under the health care reform law are used to pay for abortions or subsidize insurance plans that cover abortions, prevent any part of the federal government from forcing insurance plans to cover abortions, and codify strong conscience protections.
  
• 67% of Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion in health care, according to a January 2010 poll conducted by Quinnipiac University.
  
• Legislation such as the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” which would establish a permanent government-wide prohibition on the use of taxpayer dollars for abortion.
  
• 61% of Americans support a ban on taxpayer funding of abortion, according to a November 2009 poll conducted by CNN.
  
• Legislation establishing parental consent for minors seeking abortion.
  
• 69% of Americans support parental consent for minors under 18 seeking an abortion, according to a July 2006 poll conducted by Gallup.
  
• Legislation such as the “Child Pain Awareness Act” which would require abortion providers to notify women who want to have an abortion 20 weeks after fertilization that the evidence suggests their unborn child feels pain and they may request anesthesia for their unborn child in order to reduce or eliminate the pain.
  
• 77% of Americans favor such legislation, according to an April 2004 poll conducted by Zogby.

The Republican Party needs to hear from pro-life Americans. Speak out for Life today to ensure your voice heard on behalf of unborn children and their mothers.

Here's the Truth

A federal judge's ruling has thrust the issue of embryonic stem cell research back into the news. Following are five questions and answers about the decision. -- Did the judge's ruling block all stem cell research?No. Judge Royce C. Lamberth issued a temporary injunction blocking only federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Federal funding for the other two types of stem cell research -- adult stem cell and induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) research -- is still allowed, as is private funding for embryonic stem cell research. The judge said a 1996 law known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment -- which is attached to a yearly spending bill and must be renewed annually -- prohibits federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The amendment bars research "in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death." Lamberth's injunction could remain in place until he considers the case itself, in which he said the pro-life coalition that filed the suit has a "strong likelihood" of winning. Among the pro-life groups involved in the case are the Alliance Defense Fund, Advocates International and the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.-- What are the differences between the three types of stem cells? 1) Adult stem cells are found in various parts of the body and even in umbilical cord blood; 2) embryonic stem cells are found only in embryos; 3) induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) are skin cells that are reprogrammed to behave like embryonic stem cells. As the body's master cells, all stem cells have the potential to develop into other types of body tissue and cure diseases and other ailments. Adult stem cells are "multipotent," meaning they can develop into some, but not all, of the cell types in the body. Embryonic stem cells and iPSC cells are "pluripotent," meaning they can potentially develop into all of the cell types in the body. Embryonic stem cell research is controversial because it requires the destruction of human embryos. Adult stem cell research and iPSC research do not involve embryos and are not controversial. -- How does the Obama administration interpret the Dickey-Wicker Amendment? The Justice Department says the Dickey-Wicker Amendment allows research on embryonic stem cells as long as the embryos themselves were destroyed using private money. Lamberth, though, said the two parts of the research "cannot be separated" and that the language of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment is "unambiguous." Congress' intent, he said, was to "enact a broad prohibition of funding research in which a human embryo is destroyed." Lamberth was nominated by President Reagan. -- Has stem cell research led to any cures?Embryonic stem cell research has not, and any cures could be years away, at best. In 2006 a California institute, set up to oversee $3 billion in state embryonic stem cell funding, acknowledged that at the end of a 10-year period, it simply hoped to have "preliminary evidence" from at least one embryonic stem cell trial. The research has been slowed because embryonic stem cells have a tendency to produce cancer in animal trials. The first FDA-approved embryonic stem cell trial in the U.S. got under way this year. By contrast, advances in adult stem cell research and iPSC research are moving rapidly. Adult stem cell treatment has led to treatments for 73 diseases and ailments, according to the Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics. IPSC research may be the most promising field. Dr. Oz, of "Oprah" fame, said in 2009 he believed researchers were "single-digit years" away from finding treatments using induced pluripotent stem cells. "The stem cell debate is dead," he said, noting the problems with embryonic stem cells. In 2009, Al Gore announced his partnership in a $20 million venture to fund iPSC research.-- What's the next step in the legal case? The Obama administration is appealing the ruling and wants the judge to stay the ruling -- meaning to prevent the ruling from going into effect -- until the appeal is exhausted. Some Democrats in Congress say they will move to pass legislation reversing the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, although it is unclear whether Congress will have the time or political desire to pass such a controversial bill before the November election. It is possible it could be taken up during a lame duck session after November.