Wednesday, September 29, 2010

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.

Friday, September 24, 2010

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.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

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.

Friday, September 17, 2010

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.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

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.

Monday, September 13, 2010

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)

Friday, September 10, 2010

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.

Saturday, September 4, 2010

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.)

Friday, September 3, 2010

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 "" 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.

Thursday, September 2, 2010

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.

Strategic Voting

There are many pro-lifers who, because they thought a less than 100% pro-life candidate was not good enough, have not voted and will not vote. This tactic has enabled pro-abortion legislators to be elected and to have a stranglehold on Illinois government.

· Are you planning to stay home on Nov. 2 because you don’t think there’s anyone you can vote for?
· Would you avoid voting for a particular candidate who does not have a “pure enough” pro-life position or pro-life vote?
· Would you ever vote for someone who is pro-abortion in order to advance the pro-life cause?

Have you ever asked yourself any of these questions? Has the thought of voting for a candidate who is not 100% pro-life bothered your conscience? While this conviction is understandable, it merits more thought.

For instance, imagine two pro-abortion candidates are facing one another in the election.
You must first study their platforms and voting records (available through Lake County Right to Life). What if one supported taxpayer funding of abortion and the other did not? A strategic vote to advance the cause of life would be to vote for the one who would not fund abortion. This would limit evil. Not voting in this race might allow the candidate who supported taxpayer funding to be elected.

The Roe v. Wade decision overturned all laws that banned or limited abortion in all 50 states. This decision then has forced us to take an incremental approach—the only way to eliminate it is by eroding it. Some candidates, while not 100% pro-life, may be very helpful in legislatively promoting this erosion process. Crucially, some of these candidates may vote to confirm a pro-life Supreme Court justice. And that my dear voters, is why John McCain should have been elected. The election was all about the Supreme Court.
There could be huge benefits for the pro-life movement in voting this way. We could see parental notification enforced, the Women’s Right to Know Act passed, common sense ultrasound legislation, father’s rights legislation, and perhaps even a vote to confirm a strict constructionist Supreme Court justice.

Strategic pro-life voting can help create the future that we seek: a society in which all human life is respected, protected and secure.

.AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default}

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Ronald Reagan on adoption and abortion

(H/T: Creative Minority Report.)

Serial Killer Gains Notoriety

Imagine, an Emmy Award for a positive portrayal of a serial killer? Imagine a positive portrayal of Richard Speck and John Wayne Gacey, or any other number of murderous serial killers?

Hollywood is at it again. Their elite glorified Al Pacino in his flattering portrayal of serial Killer Jack Kevorkian on an HBO documentary: "You Don't Know Jack". Well I believe I know Jack. And you should too. Here's some facts to ponder ...

Kevorkian was an unemployed pathologist, who was credited with killing more than 130 people in assisted suicides, before the state of Michigan made the practice illegal. His real claim to fame was the killing of Thomas Youk. This killing was actually televised on CBS. Kevorkian was convicted and went to prison for 8 years.

Wanna know the real deal on Jack? Jack's search for patients to euthanize began in 1987 with his advertising for "Special Death Counseling" in a newspaper classified section. This ultimately allowed him to prey on 130 weak and vulnerable victims. His murderous crusade then began on June 4, 1990 when he helped Janet Adkins, 54, of Oregon, commit suicide in his rusted, beat-up VW van.

Virtually overnight, sympathetic members of the media (are we surprised?), turned Kevorkian into a world-wide celebrity; a real modern day hero. Please take a minute and ask yourself, does Al Pacino deserve an Emmy for positively portraying a convicted serial killer? Ask another question. Is the media any different today, in its coverage of serial killer Kevorkian, than it was when he began his murderous rampage?

One thing we all have to realize, is that the media is promoting euthanasia. All social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering. Jack loves the media and the media loves Jack. During his acceptance speech, Pacino praised Kevorkian, stating, "It's really an honor to have had the pleasure to try to portray someone as brilliant and interesting and unique as Jack Kevorkian, and the fun I had trying to get inside his head, which of course I could never." Pacino was ready to lobby the audience and viewers in favor of "You Don't Know Jack" and the man whose views are soundly denounced by the pro-life movement.

One thing is for sure; the media has an agenda. One which is at odds with a reverence for life. It wants total autonomy for everyone. It is unrelenting in its humanistic, utilitarian pursuits. Beware turning on your TV.