Monday, December 26, 2011

The Year in Review - What "Change" Do You Want in 2012?

Ring in the New Year ...  and ring out the old.  Every year on December 31st, most people celebrate the end of one year, and look forward to the beginning of a new one with much excitement and anticipation. Resolutions are made, which may or may not be kept, in the hope that things will be better in the next year. Basically, with each new year, people look forward to "Change". Where have we heard that word before?

The first thing I would like to "Change" in the new year of 2012, is the guy who championed that word in the 1st place; successfully securing himself a place of power in history.  This was his promise: "Change you could believe in". This was the mantra, that many voters fell for.  So let's just take a look back at the past  year, and see what changed in 2011. 

In January of 2011, he re-nominates 4 pro-abortion judges, and selects pro-abortion William Daley as his Chief of Staff.  He also celebrated the 38th anniversary of Roe v Wade, and recommitted himself to the the right of unlimited abortion with these words, "Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women's health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle; that government should not intrude on private family matters. I am committed to protecting this constitutional right, and on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunity as our sons to fulfill their dreams."

In February of  2011, he rewarded the "Catholic" Health Association for being instrumental in the passage of Obamacare.   He then weakened the conscience protection for health care workers.

In March of 2011, the Obama Administration refused to investigate videos showing Planned Parenthood helping alleged sex-traffickers get abortions for young girls, and threatened to veto a bill defunding Planned Parenthood's abortion business. Michelle Obama hosted a party honoring Planned Parenthood's president Cecile Richards at the White House, for the 100th anniversary of International Women's Day.

In April of 2011, he refused Republican leadership's request to cut taxpayer funding to the Planned Parenthood abortion business. He castigated the Vatican over family planning and hosted an Easter breakfast for (pro-abortion) religious leaders. 

In May of 2011, he was busy meeting with abortion advocates.

In June of 2011, his administration denied Indiana's request to defund Planned Parenthood's abortion business and approved more taxpayer funded embryonic stem-cell research.

In July of 2011, a report showed the Obama policies resulted in 300 tax-funded abortions in Washington, DC. The Obama Administration demands that New Hampshire make taxpayers fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business.

In August of 2011, he forces insurance companies to pay for abortion drugs under his national health care plan.  He approves more taxpayer funded embryonic stem-cell research on August 19th.

In September of 2011, the Obama Administration was busy preparing to force all Catholic employers in the United States to cover contraception, including abortifacient drugs, without an adequate conscience clause.

In October of 2011, President Obama threatened to veto the Protect Life Act, which would prevent federal funding for abortion, including coverage programs created by Obama Care.  

In November of 2011, Mr. Change is busy preparing for his re-election campaign, by putting in place a (Catholic) Coalition to garner the Catholic vote.

In December of 2011, just in time for Christmas, more embryonic stem-cell funding was approved.  Remember folks, the funding we're talking about throughout this report, is (taxpayer) funding. That's you and me.  We are bank-rolling Mr Change's changes. 

These are just brief overviews of Mr. Change's "change to believe in", which he brought about over the past year of 2011.  President Obama is the most pro-abortion president we have had to date.  He is totally committed to abortion on demand, in all it's gory forms.  This is the real "Change" he was talking about, when he 1st came on the scene.

So, while you are searching for that much needed job, before you lose your house and home, your president is more concerned with promoting abortion, making you support it, financially as well as morally.  It is his religion .. the only "Change" he really believes in.  Question is, what do you believe in?   And what are you going to do about it?  What do you want to see "changed" in 2012?    


Thursday, December 22, 2011

Christmas Picture

We at Lake County Right to Life want to wish all of you a Blessed and Holy Christmas Season.  

The Christmas Story resounds with an affirmation of life, beginning with the Angel Gabriel's announcement of the Savior's birth to a simple little Jewish girl named Mary who lived in Nazareth. Her humble and obedient "yes" to God's invitation to become the Mother of God reflects our own "yes" to defend Life. As the story continues, Mary with child travels with haste to the hill country of Judea, where Elizabeth feels her unborn son, John the Baptist, leap for joy in her womb. Later, Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem, where the Son of God is born in a humble stable. Choirs of angel's announce his birth, by singing peace on earth to men of good will.

Although this story is about the "Good News' of our salvation, there is a parallel to be considered.  For although we usually think of Christmas as a time of good cheer, we often forget that there is another part of the story that is equally important.  For shortly after the Savior's birth, Joseph and Mary are forced to flee Herod who seeks the death of the Christ child.  King Herod, in a savage frenzy to destroy the newborn Christ child, murders countless numbers of innocents. 

Today, King Herod is alive and well and sitting in the White House, and he is still seeking the death of innocents.  Herod seeking the death of the child is just as much a part of the Christmas story as the joyful birth of the babe in the manger.  We are involved in this same parallel today.

Today, the media shows our President lighting the national Christmas tree and smiling beside his beaming wife and children, but we cannot forget that he has been the most pro-abortion president in history.  We cannot forget that back in Springfield, President Obama was the only state senator to speak out against providing protection to babies surviving late-term abortions. 

Our "King Herod" has not let up-his recent efforts have included a push for all of us to pay for chemical abortions.  His administration excludes organizations working to protect victims of human trafficking if they refuse to refer clients for abortions.

So, as we reflect this year on these parallels of the Christmas Story, let us re-commit ourselves to the issue of life, not just as a mental assent or a part-time hobby, but as a divine call. This is a time when we are all being called to live the Christmas message in a much deeper way than we may have in the past.

Lake County Right to Life wishes you and your loved ones a Holy and Blessed Christmas and a Happy New Year. 

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

From Small Beginnings ...

Small Beginnings
We at Lake County Right to Life are delighted by the recently released statistics from the Illinois Dept. of Public Health, showing that the number of abortions performed on Lake County residents revealed a 5% decrease for 2010. These numbers reflect Lake County Right to Life's impact in Lake County.

We could not have accomplished this work without you. You are the reason for Lake County Right to Life's success - because you are Lake County Right to Life. You are the heart and soul of this organization, which would not exist without you.

With your help, Lake County Right to Life has made a huge impact for Life in Lake County, through advocacy, witness and education (AWE). Here are a few of the activities that we are engaged in throughout the year, which we could not accomplish without you. 
  • First and foremost, through your generosity, Lake County Right to Life now has a fully functioning professional office and staff.
  • With your help, Lake County Right to Life is able to use social media to reach out and educate our members, through our website, Constant Contact emails, Blog, Twitter and Facebook.
  • Your support has also helped Lake County Right to Life present educational forums, which are held throughout the year. These educational forums help keep pro-lifers up to date on the ever changing face of the Life issue. These forums help influence the community.
  • With your help, we make available up-to-date news regarding all that is transpiring in Washington, DC and Springfield on the Life issues.
  • Our Candidate Forum and voter guide has helped you to vote for the candidates who support Life. This has resulted in the decreasing abortion statistics in Lake County.
  • Other activities include an annual Signature Ad commemorating the Roe v Wade decision. Your public witness for Life, is reflected in supporting our parades, Life Chains and 40 Days for Life.

We are delighted that the abortion statistics in Lake County and Illinois have decreased. However, we cannot rest. The fight is not over, so we look forward to continuing to defend life together in the public arena.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

A Battle Won - The War Continues


Abortion Numbers Drop in Illinois  
The 2010 abortion statistics for Illinois have been released, and the numbers are headed in the right direction. In 2010, 41,859 abortions were performed in Illinois. This is the lowest number since 1973.

The 2010 number represents a 9% decrease from the 46,077 Illinois abortions in 2009. Abortions fell for residents of most counties and for all age groups. In Lake County, there were 1,398 abortions in 2010, down from 1,474 in 2009. This represents a 5% decrease.

More to follow on this great news

Monday, December 12, 2011

Is The US Far Behind China in Organ Transplantion Methods? A Different Caliber of Bullet.

The US is not far from China's organ trafficking processes - that is - the process of harvesting human organs from a live patient. China has admitted to the harvesting of organs from condemned prisoners, which accounts for two-thirds of their transplants.  But these are simply not condemned prisoners who are non-voluntarily having their organs harvested immediately following their execution.

Investigative journalist Ethan Gutmann of the Weekly Standard interviewed several Uighur refugees, who had actually witnessed the process of prisoner organ transplantation. The Uighur ethnic minority lives in Xinjiang, the vast Western province of China. They are actually Turkic Muslims, a few of which have even joined terrorist groups. "When it comes to the first organ harvesting of political prisoners, Xinjiang was ground zero," says Gutmann.

What these Uigher refugees told Gutmann, is unbelievably horrific! First of all, the prisoners were not necessarily all condemned men, but simply political prisoners - some of whom were young men who had been arrested for merely participating in political demonstrations.

The process reported was as follows: prisoners are injected with an anticoagulant, after which they are dispatched with a bullet to the right side of the chest. This renders them unconscious while still remaining alive. The organs are then quickly removed, without anesthetic to ensure freshness; and immediately transplanted to patients, who appear to be mostly Communist Party officials. Some of approximately 65,000 prisoners had their hearts harvested, while they were still beating, even before the 20008 Olympics!

Getting back to the US.  The United Network for Organ Sharing is a non-profit organization that coordinates organ donation under a contract with the federal government, has proposed a change in the guidelines governing donation after cardiac death or DCD. These donations are increasing yearly.

When organ donation was first proposed, the only criteria was brain-death. Now, some years later, we've raised that bar by including people who are not brain-dead, but "may" die ... determined by who? 

In the new guidelines, the requirement that "before evaluating a patient whose heart is still beating, for organ donation based on donation by cardiac-death criteria, the hospital's primary healthcare team and the legal next of kin, must have decided to withdraw ventilator support, or other life sustaining treatment, and that decision must be documented in the patient's chart, has been stricken."
A new sentence has been added, "A patient with end-stage muscularskeletal disease, pulmonary disease or upper spinal cord injury, may also be a suitable donation by cardiac-death candidate.  What?  This means that ALS patients plus other neurological disorders could become candidates for organ donation based on donation by cardiac-death. So what's the big deal? If the heart stops, isn't the patient dead anyway?

Let's explain: In 1997, the National Academy of Sciences said, a donation by Cardiac death or DCD, was ethical, as long as "tight" rules were followed. The decision to withdraw care must be independent of the decision to donate organs; and before removing any organs, surgeons must wait at least 5 minutes after the heart stops, to make sure it doesn't start to beat again.

The new donation by cardiac-death criteria involves, surgeons taking organs within moments of respirators and other forms of life-support being cut off from patients, who still have brain activity.  In the relentless quest to get more organs, some hospitals began cutting the "waiting time" that the existing guidelines permitted.  Some of them only waiting 75 seconds before taking hearts from brain damaged newborn babies. The rule revision also renames the procedure again, calling it "Donation after circulatory death".  That terminology is more accurate because the heart may not necessarily be dead before death is declared ----  a different caliber of bullet to dispatch the patient.

Thursday, December 8, 2011

Election vs Morals?

Government Makes Decision on Plan B
Today was the deadline for the FDA to respond to Teva Pharmaceuticals' request that the Plan B morning-after pill be made available for over-the-counter sale. Currently, women 17 and older can purchase the drug with proof of age.  It was expected that the FDA would approve Teva's request.

Lake County Right to Life, along with many other pro-life groups, opposed this move and urged the agency to reject it. This pill has numerous negatives besides causing abortions:

  • Without a prescription, Plan B allows potential harm from unsupervised, high doses of hormones, while interfering with parents' ability to monitor their children.
  • Plan B increases the risks of cervical cancer and blood clots.
  • Plan B has an adverse effect on the immune system, which has been linked to an increased vulnerability to HIV infection.
  • Without a prescription, Plan B sets up children for victimization by sexual predators.

Considering the aggressively pro-abortion stance of the Obama administration and recent anti-life decisions by HHS Secretary Katherine Sebelius, it came as a surprise today when Secretary Sebelius overrode the FDA and decided to keep the current regulation in place. Sebelius expressed her concern that very young girls couldn't properly understand how to use the drug without guidance from an adult. In a statement posted on the HHS website, she stated that Teva Pharmaceutical Industries had not presented enough evidence to show that younger girls would properly understand the label and use the pill appropriately without talking to a doctor first.

Secretary Sebelius also pointed out that the average U.S. girl reaches childbearing age at 12.4 years, but that 10 percent of girls are capable of becoming pregnant at 11.1 years. "It is common knowledge that there are significant cognitive and behavioral differences between older adolescent girls and the youngest girls of reproductive age," Sebelius said. "If the application were approved, the product would be available, without prescription, for all girls of reproductive age." You can read the entire statement here: Statement
Pro-abortion advocates called the decision "beyond stunning" and "an outrage." Kirsten Moore of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project said, "We are outraged that this administration has let politics trump science." To pro-lifers, this statement is surreal, as we have witnessed politics trumping science and ethics to advance the pro-abortion agenda for years.

We are pleased with Secretary Sebelius' decision. However, in light of this administration's consistently anti-life direction, we are realistic, not cynical, to agree with Kirsten Moore in wondering if the reason behind this announcement had more to do with product labeling or President Obama's re-election.

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Sperm & Egg Donors - What Are You Really Selling?

Alana Stewart, is one of an estimated 30 - 60,000 children conceived each year in the United States through sperm donation, whose story will be featured in an upcoming documentary titled: "Anonymous Father's Day".

Alana knows the color of her father's eyes and hair, and that he has a college degree. She also knows his number ... 81 ...  the number assigned to him by the sperm bank, where he deposited his sperm for sale. Number 81 would never be there to raise Alana, watch her take her first steps, see her off to her first day of school, worry over her first date or when she got her driver's license. Number 81 would not be in the audience when she stepped up to receive her college diploma.  Number 81 would not walk her down the aisle if and when she ever got married.  Number 81 would not be there for Father's Day. He was an "Anonymous Father". 

Today, that estimated 30 - 60,000 children conceived through sperm donation have become adults, and are speaking out about what it is and has been like to be fathered by sperm donors.  Alana states: "The biological parent’s absence is impossible to ignore because their presence is impossible to ignore - when you’re living in a version of their body and thinking in a version of their brain,”  “I do very much feel separated from not only my father, but my entire paternal relatives." 

In science's quest to help parents who want a child, the child itself has unfortunately been left out of the consideration. Does the parent's need to have a child, supersede the child's need to have a father and mother? This also applies to same-sex couples who are able to appropriate a child for themselves via this route.  Do people have the right to overlook another, in seeking something for themselves?  This is what has been happening today, with sperm and also egg donation, where human DNA is a commodity for sale in the marketplace.  We once sold human beings in the slave markets in this country.  Now we sell our own family's genetic history in the marketplace.

Case in point.  My mother was a very creative and artistic person, now deceased, who passed her talents on down to myself, through the virtue of her DNA.  She never had to teach me how to paint and draw, or write stories; it was already encoded in my genetic makeup, which I inherited along with her strawberry blonde hair and blue eyes.  Then I grew up to marry and have 5 children of my own; none of which seemed to inherit these artistic abilities, passed to me from my mother.  A couple of my kids inherited my writing talents, but they could barely draw a stick person!  Then, twenty-six years later, my daughter gave birth to a little girl, who just so happened to be born exactly on my mother's birthday! 

Little Grace was born on my mother's birthday, with the same strawberry blonde hair and blue eyes, and lo and behold, a few years later began to exhibit tremendous artistic abilities, along with amazing creative writing skills!  Grace, now 12 years old, can paint, draw and create amazing sculptures from clay.  She has begun making her own little videos, in what is known as "Claymations",  little animated videos of her clay figures!  It is amazing!  She is looking forward to developing her talents, and her mother has already looked into a special high school which specializes in artistic children's needs, preparing them for college.

Now that I've bragged on my granddaughter enough, there is a point here to my boasting.  What if Grace had simply been an egg or sperm sold at a reproductive center?  All the genetic makeup which is the inheritance of our family, would be sold off with her, and she would never know from where she received these talents.  A little strawberry blonde, blue eyed prodigy of our family would be out there somewhere unknown to us, and we to her.   As I was a little sad to see that none of my own 5 children had not inherited the artistic abilities from myself and my mother, I would have never had the chance to see them realized in my little granddaughter. These precious gifts would have been sold off, like a mere commercial product. Though none of my 5 children had exhibited those artistic abilities, nevertheless they were still there in their DNA.  That DNA, which one of my 5 children would later pass on to her own little girl ... Grace.

Though each and every one of us is a one of a kind unique soul, created by God, never to be repeated, yet we are each and every one of us made up of a "shared genetic pattern" passed down through the generations of our families.  Our particular looks, character, mannerisms, gifts and talents, are all shared by each and every unique individual from each family.

Once again, taking a queue from my parent's generation ... they had another expression regarding a man's sperms.  They would call this, "the family jewels".  I used to wonder as a child what this odd expression meant.  Now I know.  Number 81 was not just selling a human seed to grow a baby for another.  He was selling off Uncle Henry's scintillating wit, Aunt Martha's beautiful smile, Grandma Pearl's red hair and blue eyes ... Grandpa's musical talents ... or Grandma's artistic gift.  All of these gifts and talents and everything that contributes to the whole of who we are, are held in the genetics of our father's sperm, and our mother's ovum.  What gifts and talents did number 81 sell off?

Now, when Alana Stewart has her own daughter one day, God willing, what will her little girl inherit from number 81?  And how will she know?

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Gardasil victims speak out in videos

"I wanna be one less one less," the commercial chants, promoting the Gardasil vaccine purported to protect your child from certain HPV virus strains, that can cause cancer. The vaccine is now being suggested  for boys as well as girls, starting at ages 12 yrs. old.  Watch this crucial informative video to see what they are NOT telling you about the Gardasil vaccine, which may possibly be given to your child in a school based clinic, without your knowledge or consent.

Socialism Coming to a School Near You - School Based Health Centers

Dr. Spock told parents how to raise their children, but, at least, he didn't take them away and do it for them. He was a pacifist who was opposed to spanking. Now following in the footsteps of the Nazis and Communists, your child will now be raised by those who consider themselves your "betters".  They will also not spank your children, but will choose any medical care they deem appropriate, including abortion, without your knowledge. How convenient is that?  You no longer have to raise your own children.  The state will do it for you, albeit with your tax dollars.  What a world.  Mrs. Doubtfire has become just one more casualty in the unemployment line, losing her job to the government. That government is coming to a school near you under the guise of a  School-Based Clinic -  in Round Lake no less.

The Round Lake School Board held an open meeting on November 28th to discuss plans for the implementation of a School-Based "Health Center" (note the change in language from clinic to health center).  Here's some of what we learned -  The government expert explained that parents would initially be required to sign a "consent" form for their child to receive treatment from the health center.  This parental consent would then be "on file"; after which there would be no further necessity to notify parents, and the child could come in for any medical treatment, with or without the parents knowledge or consent.  She further explained, that Illinois law regarding minors and the Right to Consent to Health Care, states that children from the age of 12 on up, may receive medical care without parental notification. So the parental consent form seems a mere formality, with no substance.  Once they've got your signature, they've got your kid; which under Illinois Law, they can treat with whatever medical treatment they deem fit.  Consider the myriad of medical situations - physical, psychological and even sexual reproductive matters.  All of these would be left to the discretion of your local socialist school based health center professionals, who I might add, won't even be doctors, but physician assistants.  

Parents were allowed to address the Elected school board members with their questions and concerns; one of which was understandably, whether or not their child could be taken for an abortion, without parental knowledge? The government official, very condescendingly, responded to such an ignorant parental fear by saying, "that "we" (your betters) would certainly encourage your child to "consult" with you their parents."  "However, if your child was "not comfortable" with consulting you, (inferring your child could not trust you), they could access needed treatment without consulting you." How benevolent of them!  If you daughter discovers she is pregnant, and is afraid to come to you as her cruel and judgmental parent, she will be able to turn to the loving arms of your local socialist school based health center physician assistant, who will compassionately refer her for an abortion!  You need never know about it.  Is ignorance truly bliss? 

Other parents also questioned the lack of funds for school expansion and programs. One parent questioned the rational of implementing a health center when the educational needs of the students were far from being met.  The father brought up the fact that the school could not even provide an adequate math class to meet his daughter's level, and the girl was forced to attend classes which were beneath her ability. This required the parents to supplement her education at home.  Another parental comment regarded the sports fields, which the school provided, compared them to cow pastures. These and other educational concerns of parents, questioned the source of monies needed to pay for a school based-clinic, when other "educational" needs were from being met.  The government "expert" once again, condescendingly answered these ignorant parental concerns regarding monies, claiming that all of the money would come from government grants.  Now, any government expert should know, whenever a school-based clinic is placed in a community, the government funds run out within the first year, necessitating the local taxpayer to begin picking up the tab.  Don't forget this is duplicate funding, because the taxpayer is already paying for the local health department.   

Over the past 40 years or so, we have witnessed a slow progression of parental rights being attacked.  Dr. Spock, styled himself as an expert in child-rearing, whose advice was religiously followed by many World War II generation parents. Advice on child-rearing is one thing. Today there are books and experts galore,  to choose from on the psychology of child-rearing.  The key word here is "choose".  It is one thing to seek advice.  It is quite another to have your choice completely taken away when it comes to the upbringing and formation, and even health care of your children.  And this parental takeover has not happened overnight! 

Back in the 1950's, popular television shows such as "Father's Knows Best", and Leave it to Beaver, depicted parents as the persons in possession of the wisdom and knowledge which could be sought out by their children.  As time went by, television shows, as well as movies, began depicting parents as foolish, conflicted imbeciles, who ultimately needed to be straightened out by some wise 7 yr. old guru.   As a girl of the "sixties", I recall the popular phrase, "don't trust anyone over 30".  Some very clever socialistic person obviously crafted this phrase as just one of the first of many steps in the takeover of parental authority over children.

Today, we have our local Socialist School system in place, which seeks more and more to take away parental authority and any choice, or even knowledge, regarding their child's formation.  Are we surprised at the widespread sexual abuse of our children, by those in power within our school systems, public and private?  Children have become commodities, mere objects.  A commodity is not looked upon as a person who is loved by someone, but a mere object to be used however one desires ... even if that desire is disordered. 

Hillary Clinton made the famous statement, "It takes a village to raise a child."  This was just another chink in the armor of the parent's role in choosing how to raise their own child.  Their child now belongs to a village ... or more aptly in today's vernacular ... the State ... and that state will now raise your child, and see to all his or her medical needs.  I don't want to even think of what all those needs the state might consider necessary.  


Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Moral Dillemmas - Is There a Prophylactic Against Sin?

As if we didn't have enough moral dilemmas in this day and age, the Gardasil vaccine has presented us with just one more.  Whether or not to inoculate your child against harmful and immoral behavior is the latest moral dilemma which Gardasil has brought to the table.

The combined oral contraceptive pill was first approved for use in the United States in 1960. I personally recall at this time, many young girls in the neighborhood, starting at only 14 yrs. of age, suddenly needing to be put on the "Pill", as it became popularly known.  "My mother took me to the doctor for my menstrual irregularities and cramps," they would tell me, "and the doctor put me on the "Pill".  Following soon afterward, these girls became the most popular dates for the boys in the neighborhood. Can you guess why?  Those of us who did not take the Pill, for our menstrual dilemmas, sat home on Saturday night. Hmmm.

The real reason that these young girls had been put on the pill, was certainly obvious to the young girls themselves; figuring that their parents simply did not want the embarrassment of a pregnant teenage daughter.  And so was born the new age of "Free Love" and "Women's Liberation", and the greatest age of sexual promiscuity probably since the ancient Roman times. 

The widespread phenomenon of condom distribution among youth followed upon the heels of the Pill revolution, as apparently putting their daughters on theis oral contraceptive had not only led to sexual promiscuity among young people, but had fostered a false sense of security among them as well. This has led to today's commercials for the Pill now having to add the disclaimer, that the pill does not prevent against sexually transmitted diseases.  Unfortunately, what they have left out of this disclaimer, is the fact that the Pill does not prevent against getting your heart broken either.  The so called "Women's Lib" era had simply made women more vulnerable than ever before.  Wake up girls!

And the damage control continues on, as today's parents are faced with another moral dilemma regarding their child's sexual behavior, and how to protect them from the negative side-effects of such. The Pill, which was supposed to be a magical answer to give women sexual freedom and control over their reproductive faculties, has led to today's dilemma of how to control sexually transmitted diseases.   Today parents are being told they need to vaccinate their young girls, and now young boys, against certain cancers which result from a virus contracted through sexual contact. The snow ball keeps getting bigger and bigger as it keeps rolling along the path of "sexual license".

So, let's take a look at today's newest weapon in the arsenal to protect their new age of sexual liberation. The US Governments Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), reports that Gardasil has been linked to 49 sudden deaths, 213 permanent disabilities, 137 reports of cervical dysplasia, 41 reports of cervical cancer and thousands of adverse event reports ranging from headaches, nausea, genital warts anaphylactic shock, grand mal convulsions, coma and paralysis.  All this, and it only prevents against 2 of the 100 different strains of HPV, the virus which can cause cancer.   On top of all that, how many other adverse reactions are there that have not been reported, because the victim does not know about how to file an adverse reaction report, or where to even go to do such.

Weighing the risks of Gardasil against the actual protection it supposedly gives, is what parent's must now decide for their adolescent children. Furthermore, they must fear giving their kid's the same message which their grandparent's generation gave their daughters by putting them on the Pill; that of assuming they will be sexually immoral. The effects of the Gardasil vaccine, have to date, only been surmised, not scientifically proven.

So where have all these miraculous prophylactics of modern medicine led us to?  Is there really a prophylactic against the repercussions of SIN!   

Friday, November 25, 2011

Yale and NASA and Unborn Babies
Image-maker, Alexander Tsiaras, has worked as an associate professor of medicine and a chief of scientific visualization at Yale University.He has participated in developing scientific visualization software, enabling him to “paint” human anatomy using volume data. His task at Yale was to write many of the algorithms and code for NASA to do virtual surgery in preparation for astronauts going into deep space flights so they could be kept in robotic pods.
It was during this process that he was enabled to intricately see things about the human preborn body. By using special scanning technologies, which he tracked in a very detailed manner, a baby’s development could be looked at in great detail. 

In his words, these pictures were enough to make one marvel at the complexity. He even acknowledged that the human body is—get this—so structured that “it was hard not to attribute divinity to it.” Yes, this is a Yale scientist finding it difficult not to give God glory for the wonderful way in which we were knit together in our mothers’ wombs. 

For centuries, physicians, scientists and artists alike have attempted to comprehend how life begins in a mother’s womb and matures into the miracle of a baby. Who would have thought that Yale and NASA would play a key role in showing there’s undeniably beautiful and amazingly defined life inside? It’s really exciting to consider if you think about it.
In his words, these pictures were enough to make one marvel at the complexity. He even acknowledged that the human body is—get this—so structured that “it was hard not to attribute divinity to it.” Yes, this is a Yale scientist finding it difficult not to give God glory for the wonderful way in which we were knit together in our mothers’ wombs. 

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Occupy Wall Street vs Thanksgiving & the Widow's Mite.

On this Thanksgiving 2011, while the Occupy Wall Streeters have made their complaints heard about the inequities of life, I would like to bring up the famous biblical story of the Widow's Mite. We should all be familiar with the story of the poor woman, who came to the temple one day and deposited a few measly coins in the collection box.  Jesus contrasted her small donation with that of others who were much more monetarily endowed; pointing out that she had "given from her want". He teaches his apostles, that her miniscule donation had required a far greater sacrifice, than those who had far more to give. In fact, Jesus hints that those who had more, had probably given way less than they could have afforded, in comparison to the poor widow, who had given all she had.

The Occupy Wall Streeters have been singing the age old tune of the haves and the have-nots, which is at the top of the hit parade these days; especially since Obama took office. I also find this in stark contrast to the Widow's Mite, as well as the 1st Pilgrims, who celebrated the 1st Thanksgiving way back in 1620. This attitude of entitlement has taken over the attitude of thankfulness, as well as asking what we can give, as opposed to what we can get.

We can all find something to be thankful for, even in the midst of an inequitable and corrupt world. We can all look more to what we are able to contribute, even from our want, instead of being cry babies over what the other guy has that we don't have. Yes, much of what the other guy has may very well be "ill gotten gains"  (another term from my parent's generation); but they can keep their ill gotten gains as far as I'm concerned. I don't want their booty.

As a child growing up in the 1950's, a time of relative plenty for most Americans, my family had far less than my contemporaries; and my siblings and I were considered the "poor kids" in the neighborhood."  Did this bother me?  I won't lie; sometimes it did. There were times when I was ashamed of my shabby, 2nd hand clothing, in a school where all the other little girls and boys were adequately attired in the newest styles of the times. We did not have things like potato chips and Twinkies in our household cupboard, as the other neighborhood kids did. And yes, I got made fun of because of my out of date and worn out clothing, which did not fit my skinny frame. But, did I really consider myself to be poor?  Did I think that the world was unfair, and that somebody out there owed me something?  More importantly, did I see myself, as someone who had "nothing to give"?

Au Contrare! Whenever things came in the mail, from missions, showing pictures of poor little starving children, with swollen bellies and flies swarming around their heads, I would inevitably ask my mother, "can we give them some money?"  Even though I at times had holes in my own shoes, I still wanted to give some money to those poor kids in the missions.  And so we did.  We gave from our want, as the widow in the Bible; and I was so happy to be able to help others. I did not focus on those who had more than myself; rather I looked to those who had less, and sought to find something out of my own want to give them. On top of that, I was "thankful" for every little thing that the Good Lord had given me. I counted my blessings, as my grandparent's generation had always taught me; and I learned the virtue of "not feeling sorry for myself".

This is a world of inequities and unfair situations; and I am not saying that we should not endeavor to rectify these inequities, whenever and however we can. But, always remembering, that it is not about what we can get, as it is about what we can give - and always giving thanks for what we do have, instead of looking at what we don't have. Instead of seeing ourselves as have-nots, see ourselves as people who have much to give, and much to be thankful for. Realizing, that though we may have less than some, we will always have more than others. Let's see how can we help those others, instead of how we can help ourselves .. to the rich man's booty.

To this very day, looking at our financial situation, especially since my husband has been out of work for quite some time, we still get piles of mail from various missions and causes and suffering people, to which my husband and I still strive to imitate the widow in the Bible. We still prefer to see ourselves, as people who have much to give, no matter what our circumstances. 

So, if you think the world is filled with inequities - instead of looking to see how much more you can get for yourself - try and see how much more you can give.  For if we ALL gave a little more, there would be a little less inequity in the world.  And most of all ... let us give thanks, for the many blessings we do have, which the Good God bestows on the rich and poor alike.  The best things in life are still free.

Friday, November 18, 2011

Occupy Wall Street Marauders vs A Civilized Society

While the media is concentrating on the Occupy Wall Streeters in New York, and Mayor Bloomberg is rationalizing the protesters, New York City reports that there are 1 in 6 deaths, 1,200 in total, among developmentally disabled persons.  State and privately run homes have been blamed for unnatural or unknown causes in these deaths.  The New York case-files, in fact, suggest the deaths were caused by neglect, and could have been easily prevented. In fact, the editors from Albany Times Union Newspaper, called the situation a disgrace; especially given the the fact that the state spends $10 billion a year for the care of the developmentally disabled.   That much money, and 1 in 6 developmentally disabled people are dying?

To make matters even worse, the causes of these deaths are totally preventable.  New York case files suggest the deaths were caused by neglect and could have been easily prevented. Case in point:   James Michael Taylor, a 41 yr. old quadriplegic, was placed in a tub by his caregiver, who turned on the water and then left the room.  The water rose over his head, and he slowly drowned in 15 minutes.  Only God knows what went through his mind as the water rose.

Let's take a trip now to the Occupy Wall Street fiasco.  The mayor has defended the protesters, and this has been a feeding frenzy for the media.  A slew of New York politicians criticized Mayor Bloomberg, when he finally ordered the eviction of the vermin infested protesters, for violating their civil rights.  One has to question, is Mayor Bloomberg investigating the 1,200 deaths of his developmentally disabled citizens?  Where's the media coverage?  I have watched, ad-nausea, the continuing support of anarchists and the like, who exhibit the most vile ways of expressing their freedom of speech.   I also have to add, many of them can't even talk in any kind of coherent or intelligible fashion.

Why this preference by the media for covering "marauders", while the disabled in the same city are being neglected to the cause of death.  Perhaps, Bobby Schindler said it best: "These figures reflect society's growing callousness toward the disability community ...  because a person's physical appearance changes, because a person isn't able to do all the things an able bodied person can do, somehow their life is devalued.

These able bodied Occupy Wall Street marauders, prey on a civilized society, have much more to be thankful for than they realize.  And instead they should be more concerned with their truly disadvantaged brothers and sisters.  A civilized society is one which should be sensitive to all people, especially those who are in most need, and cannot care for themselves. 

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

 Supreme Court Begins Review of Obama Care  
Should Kagan Recuse Herself?
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin reviewing the new national health care law, commonly known as Obama Care. A decision is expected in the spring.

As you know, Lake County Right to Life strongly and totally opposes the ironically named Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--here are some reasons why:

  • It certainly doesn't protect unborn babies, because the law expands government involvement in abortion.
  • It certainly will not protect the elderly or physically vulnerable, because the law includes health care rationing.
  • When the bill was being considered in Congress, a key amendment preventing government funding of abortion or abortion coverage in insurance plans was dead on arrival in the pro-abortion Senate.
Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee notes that "the time for petition campaigns is past," because you can't lobby the Supreme Court. He adds that those who disagree with ObamaCare must work to shift control of the White House and Senate in the 2012 election so the bill can be repealed. Certainly a position Lake County Right to Life strongly supports.

As the Supreme Court begins reviewing this law, one important issue concerns Obama appointed Justice Elena Kagan. The Supreme Court is closely divided, often ruling 5-4. Before being nominated to the Court, Justice Kagan was Obama's solicitor general, which means she was the person appointed to represent the federal government before the Supreme Court. "As such, throughout the Obama Care debate, she headed the office that was responsible for formulating the administration's legal defense of ObamaCare," notes Jeffrey H. Anderson, senior fellow in health care studies at the Pacific Research Institute and former director of the Benjamin Rush Society.

The law states than federal judges are required to recuse themselves if they have been involved with a case before it reaches the bench or if it is questionable that they would be impartial. When asked during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings about whether she'd ever been asked her opinion or offered views on legal issues related to ObamaCare, she answered no.

However, emails between Kagan and Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, released by the Department of Justice last week, belie this. Some, in fact, make her sound like a cheerleader for Obama Care.

Kagan has given no indication that she will recuse herself.  Carrie Severino, chief counsel of the Judicial Crisis Network and expert on judicial nominations, says that "Kagan took early and aggressive action to involve her office in Obama Care and was part of the deliberative process in the Obama Care defense strategy." Severino accuses Kagan of "playing coach and umpire in the same game." In a bizarre contrast, some supporters of Obama Care have been calling for Clarence Thomas to recuse himself because his wife works for the Heritage Foundation.

Lake County Right to Life urges its members to pray for individual Justices of the Supreme Court and also to pray that justice will be prevail.  

A Story of Two Mothers - King Solomon Decides - What is True Motherhood?

Pretty much everyone who has read or heard stories from the Bible, have all heard the well known story of two women who sought a judgment from King Solomon over a baby. One woman had apparently rolled over on her baby during the night and smothered it, or perhaps it had died of crib-death, unknown at the time. Either way, there were now two mothers, one child alive, another child dead, who were both fighting over the live child.

Today in the news, there are again two mothers, with one child alive and one dead. The 1st mother from Hanover Park, Illinois, is being held without bail on first-degree murder and concealment of the homicide of her own newborn baby boy.  Nineteen year old Jessica Cruz walked into a Salvation Army store on November 4th and asked to use the employee bathroom, where she then gave birth to a 6 lb. baby boy, strangled him, and threw him in the garbage can.

Cruz had just recently graduated from high school, and had been hiding the pregnancy from everyone, except the baby's father. As Cruz is held, awaiting to appear in court, we do not yet know her full story.  Whatever drove her to commit such a heinous act?  Was she afraid of parents?  Had her boyfriend abandoned her?  We don't yet know the full story of what Cruz was going through, which led her to savagely murder her own baby.  We know abortion proponents use the argument of the stresses and fears and dangers that women suffer from pregnancy, to justify legalized killing of unborn babies.  But, as of yet, we do not know Cruz' story.

That aside, let's look at the other young mother, the 2nd mother, who was also experiencing stress, fears, dangers and abandonment, and what she "chose" to do about her unexpected pregnancy.  Bethany Saros had just been deployed to Iraq, when she discovered she was pregnant.  The contraceptive she had used, failed, and her boyfriend, the father of the child, broke his promise to stand by her and abandoned her. Furthermore, as a soldier in the military, particularly one who had just been deployed to a war-zone, she experienced "unspoken pressure" to "abort" her child, so that she could "carry on with the mission".

Saros had been experiencing stresses and trials for quite some time, as she had gone through an abusive marriage, a contentious divorce and another failed relationship.  If that wasn't enough, she had also recently been raped by a co-worker, and was struggling with her own alcohol problem.  Then, upon just arriving in Iraq, she discovers she is with child.

Her boyfriend asked her, "Are you going to keep it?"  To which she answered, "YES." "I can't do an abortion, I just can't."  At which point, even though he  had promised to stand by her, his promise proved meaningless, and she found herself, pregnant, abandoned and halfway around the world from home. She felt as though her whole world had "come crashing down."  Is that enough stress, fear and danger for ya?  Planned Parenthood would have welcomed her into one of their clinics with open arms.

But despite all these obstacles, Saros was determined to keep her child stating, "I had let everyone around me down." But I wasn't going to let the little person snuggled up in my belly down."

Back to the Bible story.  It is not really completely clear how the one woman's baby died, though I doubt she had strangled it. Yet, upon discovering her baby had died during the night, she decides she is simply going to steal the other woman's baby. And so, they both end up in the famous court of King Solomon; who then has to choose, which woman is the "true mother". Without DNA tests, King Solomon relies on the gift of wisdom with which God had endowed him, and he comes up with a test to prove who is the true mother.  He declares that the baby shall be cut in two, and half given to each woman.  We know that one mother immediately praised King Solomon for such a wise judgement, and went right along with the idea of killing the baby.  But, the other woman cried for the child to be spared, even telling the King he could give it to the other mother, rather than see it be killed.  Of course for those who know their Bible stories, King Solomon then states, that this was the "true mother", and she is awarded her baby.

Fast forward to today - how are these two stories connected?  Well, today's two mothers are not in the court of King Solomon.  One of the babies did not die by it's own mother's hand, and she is not seeking to steal the other woman's baby.  But, the connection here is simply in how King Solomon is able to draw out what true motherhood really is.  Whichever woman had been the true birth mother in the story, is not even at the heart of the question.  A true mother, by King Solomon's measuring stick, is simply one who is willing to sacrifice for her own child, instead of only looking out for herself.

Between these two mothers in today's blog, Cruz vs Saros, one, Jessica Cruz was willing to go to the most violent lengths, rather than face whatever challenges the birth of her baby might pose; while the other, Bethany Saros, was willing to give her baby life, against all odds.  She was willing to protect the life of her child, no matter what the personal cost was to herself.

All women faced with an out of wedlock pregnancy, can face embarrassment and shame in one way or another. But Bethany Saros states, "One day, my son will be old enough to ask me questions, and I want to be able to tell him that I gave him the best life I possibly could. At the end of the day, my son will be the only person I will have to explain myself to."

In today's abortion age, the test of true motherhood is based on something other than "sacrifice" as in King Solomon's time.  All parents today, view parenthood as simply having something to do with, having some little progeny, that they can give soccer lessons, I-PODs and a college degree; and of course all the brand-name clothing of the day. The idea that the child might come along unscripted, and put a crimp in all these grandiose plans, is just unthinkable. And abortion or murder (what's the difference) in a Salvation Army store, or in a Planned Parenthood clinic, seems the judgement of today.

At the end of the day, there's not a lot of difference between a woman strangling her newborn in a bathroom, and a doctor sucking it's brains out, just because it's head has not presented itself.  Abortion is murder, not choice.  What would King Solomon say about abortion? Would he judge this to be the act of "true motherhood". 

Monday, November 14, 2011

Who Pays The Price? - The Rape of Innocents

I'm on a rant!  it's a deep thinking rant.  What is an innocent human life worth in this day and age? Why are we surprised at the Penn State child abuse scandal? Since the Roe v Wade decision, the value of innocent life has disappeared in America and most of the"once" civilized world.

When a mother can have her own child violently destroyed and ripped from her own body, why are we surprised to hear of children being murdered by their own parents, and stories like the Penn State child sex-abuse scandal?

Abortion has affected our society in so many ways, it's getting hard to keep track. The Penn State scandal, is a really sad indication of something that most of us keep wanting to avoid.  That is, you cannot disrespect one innocent life, without losing the respect for all innocents.

Children have become commodities to be bought and sold by the sperm and egg donation mentality of today. And how does one look at a commodity?  It's something that is expendable, or even disposable, and certainly only there for the mere satisfaction and gratification of it's owner and others, such as those who are supposed to be  caring for the owner's property, such as a priest, minister, teacher or coach.  

So let's look at the Penn State scandal in light of this hedonistic attitude and summarize the scandal. An icon at Penn State has been accused of covering up and failing to report pedophilia in the football locker room.  The icon we're talking about has been a head coach of the Nittanny Lions from 1966 through 2011.  In fact, he holds the record for the most victories by an FBS footbatll coach. He coached 5 undefeated teams that won major ball games, and in 2007 was inducted into the college Hall of Fame. Imagine the $$$$$$ to the University from such a sterling career.  So what was really being protected here with this cover up?

I won't bore you with grissly details of who did what to whom, suffice it to say, the entire coaching staff led by JoePa, failed at a fundamental level to protect an innocent 10 yr. old child from being sodomized.  Moreover, Joe Paterno himself is a deeply devoted Catholic family man, who is well known for his devotion to and love for his own children and granchildren.  In fact, his nickname on campus and especially used by all of his players, ages 18 thru 25, was JoePa.  Wow!  What a father figure JoePa has turned out to be. 

Forgive me, but this reminds me of the Nazis in World War II Germany, who had great fraternal love and devotion for their own children, while at the same time, could cold bloodily, without any feeling whatsoever, brutally torture and murder millions of other parent's children in the Holocaust.  Think this is too harsh a correlation?   I don't.   What does it take for this kind of disregard of another man's children?

Well, we've already said that the abortion mentality has certainly led to a decrease in the value of innocent life, but there is another element here.  Remember the age old Gladiator mentality of the ancient Greek and Roman Empires.  We have reverted to the same pagan hedonistic worship of "The Games". All other considerations are forfeit.

Our sports players and coaches are paid obscene amounts of money, more than doctors and scientific researchers!  Everyone loved OJ Simpson.  No one wanted to believe anything bad about the guy ... even when he brutally murdered his wife and another man ... and at the end of the day, he was found innocent!  Other sports players who have raped women, and even if found guilty in our court system, were still deemed innocent in the court of public opinion.  Let's face it, it's the good ol boy system.  And in the court of public opinion, once again, Joe Paterno is being deemed a martyr, as rioters protest his being fired.

Just as in the court of public opinion, abortion is deemed an acceptable personal choice ... simply a matter between a woman and her doctor ... never mind that she very rarely sees the doctor ...  now, watching the Friday night riot on Penn State's campus, in protest of JoePas demise as head coach, I'm not surprised that abortion has remained legal for 38 years.  With the attitude exhibited by the rioters and the press, it would now seem that the sodomy of children is also  acceptable behavior in the court of public opinion ... just a matter between a young boy and his coach.  And this leads to another element. That being the overwhelming acceptance of the homosexual proclivity.

Ok, at the risk of being a be a bit of a gay-basher here, let's be honest. It's not heterosexual pedophilia we are talking about. But, again, that's another taboo subject.  One cannot call a spade a spade, at all, anymore in this society.  We are so politically correct, that we're willing to sacrifice innocents in and outside of the womb. 

Any society where morality declines and reverts to barbarism, who pays the price?

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Whiskey and Gunpowder Bulls Eye Investing Demography is Destiny

As we continue, or more to the point as American women continue to desensitize their natural reproductive imperative, with birth control and abortion, a looming crisis is developing across the Western and in some cases Asian demography.

China is experiencing an unbalanced female to male population, leaving much of the young men without marriage partners. This creates social and political instability. The "one child" policy of communist China and soon America (if the totalitarians in our nation have their way) has circumvented God's will to go out and be plentiful. When a government and their citizens work in the Natural and Moral Law, there is peace and security for that nation, When they do not there is no peace and no security. Our nation is fast becoming a house of cards built in the sand of human egocentricity and elitist leadership. This is the natural extension of spoiled baby boomers

Increasingly our brave, our strong, our productive, and our successful like Gulliver are being tied and hamstrung and blamed by the unproductive no nothing elite Lilliputians who purport to have a law and an answer for all of the woes they created in the first place. 

Abortion and contraception are literally killing off our population, our moral persuasion; it is increasing our moral ambivalence, indecisiveness, and political contention. Our nation must be viewed holistically. These parts of our souls, our morality, culture, religiosity, of what is sacred (if anything) are internal to the American heart and mind, while the economy and the social contract are their extensions.   

Ahh, but Jesus said it much better: "..where your treasure is there your heart is also."
Where is America's treasure? I say in the dumpsters of abortion centers.

And so in 2005 John Maudlin wrote a book Bull’s Eye Investing. The forward of this book was included in a commentary piece at the website  whiskey and gunpowder. 

For me this is not so much a book about investing but much much more about national suicide resulting from eugenics, abortion, and contraception. It is about a war of spiritual attrition which within America is gradually and purposely being lost by Obama and his sycophants.

You say to yourself ,"Whiskey and Gunpowder is a website?"  Eh! I don't know.. maybe sumptin to do with colonial history, but the web site is about:

 "Whiskey & Gunpowder explores the crossroads of liberty, finance and moral philosophy. Frankly, we don’t believe these things can be examined separately.....

Here is a taste of this forward (or maybe I should say a shot), that is at this PLACE

John Mauldin, in an excerpt from his book Bull’s Eye Investing, outlines the retirement problems the world faces.

There is no free lunch.
-Milton Friedman

NOW, LET’S LOOK away from the United States, and focus on the rest of the world. If we think the
retirement problems facing the United States are severe, then the facts suggest the rest of the
developed world is facing a major crisis. Over the next few decades, we are going to see a shift in
economic and political power that is simply staggering in its implications. Let’s look at facts first,
and then draw conclusions.

I am going to quote at length from a study by the respected Bank Credit Analyst. Martin Barnes and
his crew at BCA Research have a stellar reputation for having been as accurate as any letter in the
world for decades. They give us some sobering thoughts.

The populations of the developed countries will drop rapidly over the next 50 years, while those of

undeveloped countries, especially Islamic countries, will rise dramatically. (See Figure 11.1, Figure
11.2, and Table 11.1.) Germany will experience no population growth and will remain at 80 million
people, while Yemen will grow from 18 million to over 84 million. Russia will drop from 145 million
to slightly over 100 million. Iran will grow from 66 million to 105 million. Japan will drop to 109
million, while Iraq and Saudi Arabia will grow to 110 million each. Italy will decline from 57 million
to 45 million, while Afghanistan will grow from 21 million to 70 million.  read more here 

In the words of Margo Channing aka Betty Davis: Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night!

The Abortion Issue vs The Death Penalty Issue

OK, I'm really mad this time. And let me explain that this is not about whether I am personally for or against the death penalty. I reserve my personal opinion at this time, and am not making a statement on that issue one way or the other. That's not the point of this blog, and that's not what I'm mad about. I'm mad about people who equate the death penalty with the abortion issue, because  it is the most unjust equation I have ever heard!

There was a phrase coined by a recent Catholic Cardinal, "the seamless garment", meant to connect and blend multiple issues with the abortion issue.  How many times have I heard it said that abortion is a "single" issue.  Now, today, a gentleman in my own church told me he refused to support our local pro-life organization; because it was not also including the death penalty issue.  This really has my ire up. 

For those of you who are against the death penalty, that's all well and good, and you're entitled to your opinion; and if you wish you can join an anti-death penalty crusade.  I for one am simply  enraged that this gentleman, in my own church, would refuse to help an organization that fights to save innocent unborn babies, because he feels some convicted murderer's life should be equated with that of the unborn child's life. 

Excuse me! You mean to tell me, that you're going to let innocent unborn babies continue to be butchered and murdered in their mother's wombs, until all the death row inmates have their sentences commuted?

Ok, let's review. A suspected murderer has rights.  He is allowed to be judged in a court of law, by a jury of his piers, with legal counsel at his side.  Even after his conviction, he is allowed appeals upon appeals ... leading up to and including the actual date of his scheduled execution.  On the day of his scheduled execution, he is even permitted spiritual comfort and counsel with a priest or minister of his preference.  He is given choice of his favorite foods for a last meal.  He is also allowed visits from his family and friends, in order to say his goodbyes.  Even at the moment of his execution, he is allowed a final statement of his choosing, by being asked if he has any last words.  All along, he is given ample time to make his peace with society, his victim or victims, his family and his God.  From beginning to end, ample care is taken to assure that all of his rights are afforded him ... more rights certainly than he afforded his victim or victims.  

Now, let's review the unborn baby in the womb's rights.  NONE!   Let's review, the unborn baby in the womb's legal counsel. NONE!  Let's review whether there is a jury to adjudicate the unborn child's' fate.  NONE!   Let's review how many appeals the unborn child has.  NONE!   Let's review who the child gets to say goodbye to.  NO ONE!   Let's review the unborn child's last words.  HE NEVER GOT A CHANCE TO SPEAK HIS FIRST WORDS!  Last but not least ... let's review the GUILT OF THE CHILD IN THE WOMB .... NONE!  THERE IS NO GUILT ... THE CHILD IS COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY INNOCENT!

Whether you are for or against the death penalty, please explain to me how the abortion issue and the death penalty issue are the same, and how one can be equated with the other?    

Monday, November 7, 2011

Young Woman Strangles Her Newborn Infant - Abandoned Newborn Infant Protection Act

Horror of horrors, as a newborn baby boy is found dead and discarded in a garbage can at a Salvation Army store, by one of the store's employees.  Weighing 6 lbs. and 11 oz. the baby was born on Friday in the store's restroom, according to Streamwood Police Cmdr. Dan Barnes. It was reported that the mother gave birth to the baby, and then strangled it to death before disposing of it in a trash can.

This is the 2nd baby to be discarded in the past couple weeks, as another newborn infant was left in a shopping bag at a church in Schaumburg on October 26th. But at least that baby had not been strangled to death by its' own mother; who apparently believed that someone at the church would come along and find it. Fortunately someone heard the child's cries in enough time to save it.

Why this young woman felt she needed to, not only abandon, but murder her newborn infant, is a sign of the times in this Culture of Death. Due to abortion, life has become so cheap and disposable, are we surprised? When a mother can kill her child inside the womb, what's the difference killing it outside the womb? The age of abortion has created a mind-set which has relegated the child in the womb to a mere waste product to be eliminated from a woman's body.  It's just a short step after that, to considering the child as a "waste product" shortly after it has been born. The child's humanity has been stripped away, so that it no longer resembles anything which would evoke sympathy, even from its' own mother. 

The biggest tragedy to all of this, is that today, there was no reason for either mother to feel they needed to abandon, much less kill off their newborn, as  Illinois offers a safe, legal option to unsafe infant abandonment. Illinois' Safe Haven Law, The Abandoned Newborn Infant Protection Act, was written to provide a safe alternative to abandonment for Illinois parents who feel unable to cope or care for their newborn baby. It offers "safe havens" for such newborns, with No Shame and No Blame. 

The Abandoned Newborn Infant Protection Act says that parents who do not harm their babies cannot be prosecuted for abandonment, if they bring their newborn (30 days old or younger) to any hospital, emergency care facility, police station or staffed fire station in Illinois, and hand their baby over to a staff member, with no shame or blame. After handing over your baby to one of these designated "safe places", you then have 60 days in which to return, before you forfeit your parental rights, and your baby can then be adopted.

Furthermore, when you relinquish your baby at a hospital, you may also be offered medical care and or counseling for yourself. Trained hospital staff members can also help you cope and make sure you understand your rights and options. But if you do not wish these services, you may simply walk away, with No Shame and No Blame. 

And YES, you can keep your baby a secret ... as well as safe. Once again, as long as you have not harmed your newborn, you may relinquish your infant to any "safe place" and simply walk away, with No Shame and No Blame. No one need ever know, and your baby will be safe! 

It is imperative that people learn and tell others about The Abandoned Newborn Infant Protection Act.  Please go here to learn more, and also discover Other States that have Safe Haven Laws ...

Friday, November 4, 2011

 Senate Moves to Overturn Defense of Marriage Act
Respect for Marriage Act Intentionally Misleading
Today the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee will begin debate on S598, the Respect for Marriage Act of 2011. Sponsored by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), the title of the bill is confusing.  Using the word "respect" instead of "defense," it sounds very much like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). People might think it is something similar, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Respect for Marriage Act would actually overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.

S598 is supported by the ACLU and gay organizations. It is opposed by some Tea Party organizations, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defense Fund.

Illinois Senator Dick Durbin is a member of the Judiciary Committee and a co-sponsor of the bill. In fact, all ten Democratic members of the committee support the bill, so even if all eight Republicans oppose it, it is sure to make it out of committee. Ironically, many of the 30 Senators co-sponsoring the bill voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

It is still important to call Senator Durbin to let him know how you stand on this bill. Please call our other Senator, Mark Kirk, and urge him to vote no on S598. Ask him to please continue to support the Defense of Marriage Act as passed in 1996.

Only 5 states permit same-sex marriage.  In 30 states, such unions are constitutionally banned.  In explaining her support of DOMA recently, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) noted that it "was enacted by Congress in order to protect individual states and their laws against same sex marriages."
While S598 is touted as ensuring "respect for State regulation of marriage," in reality it would do the opposite.  Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy at the Family Research Council, says, "The bill would repeal both parts of the Defense of Marriage Act so that it would make it much easier to force other states to recognize same-sex marriage."  
Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) in Washington, DC, testified before the Senate about this bill in July. He explained that "far from respecting marriage, S.598 would empty the term of any core content" and "would include anything that any state, now or in the future, recognized as marriage." He added that this would have the "real world consequences" of once again allowing polygamy. In the 19th Century, polygamy was recognized as being incompatible with democracy, and anti-polygamy provisions were a condition of statehood for Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma. Whelan added that Section 3 of the Respect for Marriage Act would require taxpayers in states that maintain traditional marriage laws to subsidize the provision of federal benefits to same-sex unions or polygamous marriages recognized by any other state.

Whelan also discussed President Obama's responsibility to defend DOMA under Article II of the Constitution. His refusal to uphold DOMA is not just breaking a campaign promise, it is also unconstitutional. Whelan stated that "an administration may not work to overturn a law merely because they disagree with it from a public policy perspective (i.e. ideology)."

To read the full comments of Edward Whelan as well as those of Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defense fund and Tom Minnery of CitizenLink, CLICK HERE 

Contact information for Senators Durbin and Kirk is in the column on the left. You may also wish to register your opinion on this legislation at the following site: CLICK HERE

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Boy What A Tangled Web We've Woven! Vaccinating For Behavioral Diseases.

Ok, so what's the answer? As a young girl, I remember when the birth control pill first came out. Women in my neighborhood rushed to put their 14 yr. old daughters on the pill, the premise being that it would regulate their menses. I think an underlying motive, was that it would also relieve a parent's fears of the embarrassment and hassle involved with their teenage daughter's possible pregnancy.  The result was that these girls, almost immediately, became sexually promiscuous! I do not exaggerate. My girlfriends who began taking birth control pills, lost their virginity ex-post haste. 

Now, today, the question is whether or not to vaccinate our pubescent children against a widely prevalent sexually transmitted disease, known as Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). It is only through willful behavior that the disease can be contracted. Today's parents must now decide, as with the women of the early days of the Pill, whether or not they need to give something to their child, which is really a behavioral concern.

First of all, as I can personally attest, my girlfriends whose mothers put them on the pill, were given a sort of subliminal message that their mothers had already assumed their daughter would not remain a virgin. The result was that they definitely did not remain virgins. A similar dilemma presents itself with a parent choosing to vaccinate their child against a sexually communicable disease.  Once again, what is the child to interpret from this?

The tangle to this question though is not easy to avoid. Today, more than ever before, even children from the best and most faith-filled families have been succumbing to peer pressure to become sexually active. And even if your son or daughter remains a virgin till marriage, there is no such guarantee with their future spouses. So, with the numbers of the CDC showing astronomical rises in the occurrence of cancers that are caused by HPV, does a concerned and loving parent take the risk of vaccinating a child against possible future behavior, not only on the part of their own child, but on the part of their child's future spouse? What are the risks to this vaccine? And once again, as with the pill, will this choice send a message to the child that the parents have already assumed they will be sexually active before marriage?   Oh what a tangled web are the consequences of sin!  Yes, let's call it sin, because that is what it is!

Well, I would like to at least give parents one equation here to this question. And that question regards the efficacy of the vaccine itself. First of all, the HPV vaccine has been being widely used without sufficient evidence as to whether or not it is even effective! Moreover, the vaccine has been reported to have caused multiple deaths and other serious side-effects.

Of course, people get sick and some people can die from all vaccines. It's a numbers game. Small Pox was successfully eradicated due to an aggressive world-wide campaign of immunization. I recall as a child, the Polio epidemics, which would keep my mother scared out of her wits half the time, whenever we kids got a sore throat. She was extremely thankful for the Polio vaccines which came out against the disease. The efficacy of both the Small Pox and Polio vaccines greatly outweighed their risks.

So, in my opinion, the bottom line is still the risks verses the results.  If parents are going to be forced to decide whether or not to vaccinate their child for a "behavioral" disease, and all the subliminal messages that gives their child, shouldn't they at least be assured that the vaccine's effectiveness outweighs it's risks?