Friday, April 29, 2011

Calling All

Major Pro-life Legislation Before Congress As early as next week (the week of May 2) the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to take up a major pro-life priority, HR 3—the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. Lake County Right to Life strongly supports this bill and the actions of House leaders advancing it. HR 3 would reinforce a policy having overwhelmingly public support—according to an April CNN poll, Americans oppose public funding of abortion by a margin of 61% to 35%.

Since 1976, the Hyde Amendment has prevented federal funding of elective abortion in the Medicaid program. More than one million Americans are alive today because of the Hyde Amendment.

However, the Hyde amendment needs yearly renewal, leading to a debate in Congress during consideration of annual appropriations bills. The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would settle the issue by making the Hyde Amendment permanent. Funding of abortion in any federal program, except to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest, would be permanently prohibited.

HR 3 faces an uphill battle—President Obama has previously called for a repeal of the Hyde Amendment and will use the full power of his office to block passage of HR3. In 2009, he helped block similar language from the health care bill. Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and other pro-abortion groups have been attacking HR 3 and its supporters, distorting the contents of the bill and characterizing it as part of a “Republican war on women.” However, there is nothing in the bill that would change current law regarding access to abortion.

Please contact Rep. Robert Dold (IL 10) and urge him to support HR 3. We thank Rep. Joe Walsh (IL 8) for co-sponsoring the bill and encourage pro-lifers convey their thanks to him. We especially commend Democratic Congressman Dan Lipinski (IL 3) for his courage and leadership in sponsoring HR3.

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Do Pro-Choicers Really Believe It's Not A Child?

Let's get to the heart of this argument right here and now, for once and for all. The never ending debate over whether or not life begins at conception, whether it's a child or a fetus has been raging on for years between pro-life and pro-choice proponents. The pro-choice proponents have carefully crafted a subterfuge of words, to hide the reality of abortion. Words like fetus are used in place of words like baby, child, human being etc., when referring to the unborn. Recently Abby Johnson, the famous Planned Parenthood leader turned pro-life advocate, revealed in her book, her own blind acceptance of the pro-choice argument, due to the clever omitting of key words that might reveal the humanity of the child in the womb.

So, are all pro-choice proponents as blind and naive as Abby? Is this because they really and truly believe in their heart of hearts, that the unborn child is not a child, but simply a cluster of cells? And do they truly feel that science proves this theory beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Well recently in British Columbia, a Green party candidate in Canada's upcoming federal election, did not mince words when he blatantly stated, "I'm glad I got rid of my unborn child!" Child? Did he say child ... the no no word in the lexicon of pro-choice zealots? Yes, Roger Benham, a Green party British Columbia political candidate, used the word child, in a most shameless yet revealing statement on the pro-choice stance. Benham went on to say, "Really, we do silly things when we're young ... and I'm sorry, but a lot us men are bloody selfish when it comes to having sex." He then went on to make references to pregnant women looking like, "the back of a bus."

Here we finally see the true nature of the avid abortion proponent. With no excuses or attempts to guard his words, he fully and shamelessly reveals the true heart of abortion. Forget all the rhetoric about choice; this is about selfishness pure and simple! They know it is a child! They know it is a life .. and they know when life begins ... this has never really been at issue here.

What has been at issue here from day one, is the fact that the true abortion advocate cares very little whether or not they are destroying an innocent life, because the only life that matters to them is their own; and any other life that gets in the way of theirs is expendable. It's that simple.

Put away all your well thought out arguements, and scientifically documented evidence of when life begins, of when it is viable, or whether or not it is even human. They really don't care. This is what has been the brood nest, where the queen has been laying her abortion eggs from the very beginning. The myriads of Abby Johnsons, whom they have duped with their rhetoric, have never really seen into their true abortion hearts. A cult leader is the only one who really knows what he is about; while his unfortunate followers are merely blindly led along by their glorious leader, who knows exactly what he is doing, even if they don't.

Well, the vampire has revealed his fangs, and they are covered with blood! "He's GLAD he got rid of his CHILD." There are no clever semantics here. There is no erudite verbal engineering about choice and womens' rights. Here is the naked heart of abortion, exposed for all who dare to see.

Choice? What is the choice over? For the devout abortion advocate, the choice is all about your life verses mine; and I was here first, so I get to choose and you loose. This is the survival instinct of the mindless primitive. We have reverted to the savagery of a species who eats it's own young. (refer to the previous blog on sci-fi food deceptions.)

So all the intellectualizing and trying to scientifically prove that it is a child and not a choice, is simply beside the point to these mindless primitives. They don't care that it is a child .. they never did! It's the child's life or theirs ... and in the scale of things by their primitive view, the child's life is forfeit in favor of their own. It's that simple.

Who Is Gambling With Women's Health?

A Breast Cancer Research journal article of May 2010, reviewed mounting evidence of declining use of the hormone replacement therapy, known as HRT, to be a major contributing factor to a decrease in breast cancer incidence, in women 50 yrs. or older, who had stopped using this hormone therapy. Although they only stopped using this dangerous drug, upon finding out for themselves of the dangers. They were not told by their doctors or anyone else for that matter.

Meanwhile, worldwide studies continue to support the abortion breast-cancer link known as the ABC link. The Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention published their results showing a whopping 62% increase in breast cancer in women who'd had induced abortion. This is an astounding increase which reveals a very significant connection between abortion and breast cancer.

This same Breast Cancer Research publication went on to decry the fact that the UN's International Agency on Research of Cancer's Monograph 91, even after classifying HRT as a Group 1 carcinogen for breast and cervical cancer, (the same classification given to cigarettes) did not suggest any campaigns for public awareness to women of the serious risks from HRT. Nor were there any suggestions of further research for relief of menopausal symptoms, except to merely suggest limited usage of HRT. Women only learned about the risks of HRT, on the 6 o'clock news .. if they were lucky enough to have the TV on that night. They did not hear it from their doctors. Why?

Furthermore, recent surveys of young women using oral contraceptives, revealed that only 19% of them were ever told of a cancer risk from this form of birth control. Oral contraceptives are made of the same breast cancer causing drugs, as those being taken by menopausal women who are using HRT. So why aren't women told?

Why are women not being armed with this crucial information needed to save their lives? Why is Planned Parenthood, who claims to be such a champion of women, not warning women of the risks of breast cancer from abortion? Why are doctors not informing young women of the cancer causing risks of oral contraceptives? And why are their menopausal mothers not being educated on the risks of breast cancer from HRT? What is the agenda here and who benefits? Certainly not women.

Cigarettes are also typed as a Group 1 carcinogen, and everyday we are flooded with information and warnings and even campaigns against the dangers of cigarette smoke ... including secondary cigarette smoke .. to the extent that cigarette smoking is banned in most public places, except for gambling casinos cuz they don't care if you gamble with your health. So who is gambling with women's health?

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Hansel & Gretel's Sci-Fi Gingerbread House

Hansel & Gretel, wandered through the woods one day, where they came upon a wondrous house, made all of marzipan and gingerbread and all manner of sweet delights. The sugary cottage was in fact a sinister deception crafted by an evil witch, where once inside, only death awaited the two innocent children.
Senomyx has been crafting food and flavor deceptions, through genetically engineered taste bud receptor cell triggers. Our brains will taste what is not really there; but rather artificially induced illusions, deceptions, and mere memories of taste sensations. This is intended of course, to accommodate our attention to our figures and health, without being denied the palatable pleasures which sugar, salt and MSG provide.
Moreover, just as with Hansel and Gretel's gingerbread house, the enticing flavors contain death; genetically engineered food additives containing embryonic kidney cells from aborted human fetuses. Senomyx actually reveals, in a review of their patents, that they began their new technology with the cloning of human embryonic kidney cells. For those who are more scientifically acute, google 'Senomyx and patents' and the third link ( will provide more info than you may need or want to know. See: United States Patent #5,993778.
This is no futuristic vision. The future is here .. and the next time you read "artificial flavor" on a food label, I'd think twice. For Senomyx is presently collaborating with many of the world's largest food manufacturers such as: Campbell's, Nestles, Coca Cola, Pepsi and Kraft Foods, to develop new foods & beverages, which deceive your taste buds by artificially stimulating them with biotech products developed by Senomyx. In fact, if you are a consumer of any of Nestle's foods, you are already having your taste buds artificially stimulated with these biotech flavor enhancers.
The famous fairy tale scenario of Hansel and Gretel is alive and well, in this new Sci-fi food deception. Today's gingerbread house of sweets and treats is truly a house of death, with the abortion industry in the forefront of this Brave New World. And while we avoid the negative side-effects of food flavorings such as salt and sugar, what will be the long term side-effects of ingesting our own human DNA? This DNA is being provided by innocent victims of abortion, to produce flavor alternatives, so that we can have a trimmer waistline.

No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act up For a Vote

Congress has been conducting heavily heated debates over federal funding of abortion for over 30 years. Meanwhile, while the debate rages, unborn babies continue to be killed by abortion. Women continue to be deceived and families are being torn apart, while Congress continues to bicker over whether tax dollars should support a killing field.

Now they're at it again. As early as the week of May 2nd, our esteemed representatives will take up the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act (HR-3) debate once again. Expect the following rhetoric, from Planned Parenthood, NARAL and other pro-abortion groups, as Republican leadership begins to move HR-3 forward. "It's a Republican war on women", will be the rallying cry and the shot heard over the bow, as a weapon to agitate our secular media to spring into action, and come to women's defense.

For the past 30 plus years, the Hyde Amendment, which has prevented federal funding of elective abortion in the Medicaid program, since 1976, has been hotly debated. In spite of the debates, by conservative estimates, more than 1 million Americans are alive today because of the Hyde Amendment. HR-3 No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, would settle the issue permanently. HR-3 would prohibit funding of abortion in any federal program (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape and incest).

Abortion should not be subsidized in any government program. This bill will be facing an uphill battle in order to be enacted in Congress, due to anticipated opposition from President Obama. House Republican leaders should be commended, not condemned, for protecting women and unborn babies with this legislation, and for preventing taxpayers from complicity in serial killing.

Please call your Congressman and ask him/her to support HR-3, and not be deceived by rhetoric and name calling. Be a patriot, and come to the aid of women and their helpless unborn citizens.

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Planned Parenthood = KKK

If one substitutes Planned Parenthood with the Klu Klux Klan one would get the same result. A racist organization by any other name is still a racist organization; eugenics and the thinning of the black population through abortion.

If the KKK had abortion centers in all of the ghettos of America would the Senators have voted to continue federal aid to that organization?

I doubt it.. De-fund Planned Parenthood and defend a black child's right to live!

Saturday, April 23, 2011

Just When You Least Expect It

I've noticed two things about the abortion debate.

First: We're winning. More and more people identify as pro-life, more and more people report that they support legal restrictions on abortion, and more and more young people are pro-life.

Second (and counter-intuitively, considering the first point), the pro-life side doesn't usually drive the debate. Whenever abortion percolates to the top of our national discussions, it's most often because of something that the pro-abort side has said or done.

For example, what preceded the recent House vote to de-fund Planned Parenthood? A series of videos were released by LiveAction showing the eagerness of Planned Parenthood employees to provide their (government-funded) services to pimps running rings of (fictitious, as it turned out) illegal immigrant underage sex slaves.

This week the blogosphere is all over the recent post at the Wonkette blog that demonstrates liberals' visceral hatred of Trig Palin, the Down Syndrome baby of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Due to pre-natal testing, 90% of Down Syndrome babies are aborted in a fit of American Lebensunwertes Leben. Of course, liberals hate little Trig, who turned 3 this week, because his existence stands as a rebuke to their bankrupt philosophy and as a testament to the dignity and sanctity of human life. Such a famous Down Syndrome child provides unacceptably counter-cultural example of selflessness. Liberals believe that Trig should have been aborted, and they could not care less about anyone's "choice" in the matter. And a large number of people who last week were emphasizing the importance of fiscal policy in choosing our next president are now discussing how vile the pro-abortion tendencies of the left really are.

As you look back, it's the same story. What were the big abortion-related stories in 2008, during the last presidential campaigns? There were two: Barack Obama said that the question of when a baby gets human rights was "above my pay grade". And in a press conference, Obama said that if his girls, having reached their teen years, were to "make a mistake," that he wouldn't want them to be "punished with a baby."

So what do you think? What will the pro-aborts do next to draw unwanted and embarrassing attention to themselves?

Friday, April 22, 2011

Baby Joseph Comes Home

Baby Joseph the 16th month old baby, who was recently at the center of a huge international right to life controversy, has gone home. He is no longer on a breathing machine.

A little background: Baby Joseph has a progressive and terminal neurological disease. He and his parents reside in Ontario,Canada, where his parent's request for a tracheotomy was refused, in the Canadian hospital where he was originally treated. Canada has national health care. His parents had requested this procedure in order to bring him home to die. This little 16 month old baby ignited a firestorm of debate on futile care and withdrawal of treatment. Many pro-life organizations intervened both financially, medically, legally as well as spiritually on the behalf of the parents of Baby Joseph. Father Frank Pavone spearheaded the successful effort to transfer Baby Joseph to Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center in St. Louis, Missouri. Doctors there performed the tracheotomy that Baby Joseph's parents had requested. A tracheotomy is an opening into the windpipe, to keep an airway clear. It is routine in the United States for anyone who is facing long-term ventilation support. One of the questions, medical experts asked, was why had this baby not already been trached for comfort, as is routinely done in the U.S.? Perhaps it was the difference between national health care and the excellent care the United States provides.

Baby Joseph received a successful tracheotomy on March 21, 2011, and responded well to the procedure, which gave him increased mobility and comfort while providing a stable and secure airway. Doctor Wilmott, Chief of Pediatrics for Cardinal Glennon and St. Louis University School of Medicine said, "The baby has been breathing so well on his own, there will be no need to take him to a rehabilitation hospital, and he can be transported to Ontario. Joseph has been breathing on his own, without the aid of a mechanical ventilator for more than a week. By providing him with this common palliative procedure, we have given this baby the chance to go home and be with his family, after spending so much of his young life in the hospital."

Father Frank Pavone said, "Our mission to save Baby Joseph and help his family was never based on any prediction for the future, but rather on the value of his life here and now. Our critics, on the other hand, looking into the crystal ball that the right to die advocates seem to always think they have, claimed our intervention was futile, because Joseph would only end up having a machine do his breathing for him. We don't have to answer their criticism; Baby Joseph is doing that for us. Baby Joseph's victory over the culture of death is especially powerful now, as we prepare for Easter; a time when Christians everywhere celebrate Jesus' victory over death."

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Abortion Ensures Wisconsin Will Be Conservative

James Taranto at The Wall Street Journal has done the math (H/T: The Other McCain):
There probably are many more like Tricia Willoughby, aren't there? After all, her parents are "pro-life activists," which means they have a tendency to follow the biblical injunction to be fruitful and multiply. People on the other political side are more inclined toward subtraction (or as they call it, "choice"), as we explained in our 2005 paper "The Roe Effect."

Here are some Badger State numbers: Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide in 1973. The Wisconsin Department of Health has statewide figures on the annual number of abortions going back to 1975. Tot up the numbers through 1992, and you come up with 316,457.

Scott Walker won the governorship last year by a margin of 124,638. That may not be within the margin of abortion; after all, some of the missing 316,457 would have voted Republican had they existed, and many would not have voted.

But JoAnne Kloppenburg, the left-liberal state Supreme Court candidate who was supposed to save Wisconsin's labor monopolies from Walker's reforms, lost by just 7,316 votes, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (this figure is pending a possible futile recount). It's almost inconceivable that the Roe effect alone is insufficient to account for Justice David Prosser's victory.

Oh, and in four years, Tricia Willoughby will be old enough to vote, while an additional 54,522 will not be.
Abortion; it's not an evolutionary survival technique.

Why They Hate Trig Palin

Every politician makes political appearances with their kids. Every candidate makes campaign appearances and produces campaign materials that include their kids. The Clintons did it with Chelsea, the Obamas do it with their daughters, I did it with my kids.

But one politician -- just one -- has taken flack for appearing with one -- just one! -- of her kids. That politician is former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. And the child they hate to see her with is her youngest, Trig, who has Down Syndrome.

Make no mistake. The left hates Trig Palin:
Now Wonkette is at it again, in an even more crude manner, this time authored by 2010 Georgetown grad  Jack Stuef, Greatest Living American: A Children’s Treasury of Trig Crap On His Birthday.

Replete with PhotoShops of Trig next to a pulsating pole dancer (image right), and links to videos in which various Democrats mock Trig in profanity-laced tirades, Stuef has a good laugh with text such as this:
Today is the day we come together to celebrate the snowbilly grifter’s magical journey from Texas to Alaska to deliver to the America the great gentleman scholar Trig Palin. Is Palin his true mother? Or was Bristol? (And why is it that nobody questions who the father is? Because, either way, Todd definitely did it.) It doesn’t matter. What matters is that we are privileged to live in a time when we can witness the greatest prop in world political history...

What’s he dreaming about? Nothing. He’s retarded.
Wonkette is no fly-by-night outfit.  Here is how it describes itself on its Advertising page: is a top 5,000 site and No. 63 Technorati blog that reaches over 1 million monthly unique visitors, 88% of which are in the U.S. The site is wildly popular among a mostly male, very affluent and well educated adult crowd. The typical visitor reads Gawker and subscribes to the Economist and Vanity Fair.

Winner of three consecutive Bloggies and a regular source of outrageous quotes and jokes for the political class, Wonkette is Washington's non-stop campaign cocktail party.
Wonkette is a sick publication.  But it sure is popular with the liberal D.C. crowd.
Outrageous. Some some folks complained to the advertisers on that site, and three of them pulled their ads. Papa John's, Huggies and Vanguard. The editors at Wonkette defend the post:
“We beat up on Sarah Palin’s craven use of her son as a political prop. Child protective services should take Trig away.”

“On whose account are you requesting that Jack Stuef remove a post mocking Sarah Palin’s well-documented use of her special needs child as a political prop?..."
It's easy to see that the left hates Sarah Palin with the hot, hot fire of a thousand suns. And the real reason for this hatred is Trig. They hate Trig with every fiber of their being. They hate him with a passion beyond description. Murder would not satisfy their hatred of Trig, because they hate most of all the fact that this baby was ever born.

If Sarah Palin had aborted Trig, she would be a hero to the left. But she kept him, she loves him, Down Syndrome and all. And they hate that.

The abortion ethic holds that only the perfect baby is worthy to be born. The abortion ethic holds that only the wealthy baby is worthy to be born. Trig stands as a living rebuke to the pro-aborts, who, in him, are revealed not to be pro-choice at all, but only pro-abortion. Trig Palin, by simply living, is a testament to the dignity and sanctity of all human life. The pro-abort left cannot abide, and cannot tolerate, his witness.

And so they make up lies and excuses for their hatred about Sarah Palin's "exploitation" of her son. Of course, if Trig was never seen in her materials and appearances, they would claim that she was ashamed of him, that she was hiding him. It's not that they see Trig that enrages them; it is that Trig lives at all. Modern liberalism is a philosophy of hatred, of jealousy, of death. The left's reaction to Trig Palin is the logical expression of that philosophy.

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

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

RedState: Abortion Numbers in Perspective

Dan McLaughlin at the conservative blog RedState has a reminder about just what's at stake in the abortion fight, compared to other losses of human life:
With the recent debate over federal taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood bringing the abortion debate back to the surface, it is sometimes useful to look at the numbers to get a little perspective on why this issue is such a large one. (All of these are estimates, and sources vary, but there’s no serious debate as to the scale of the numbers).

Number killed or missing in action in all wars in U.S. history: 1,343,812. Adding the wounded: 2,489,335.

Number killed or missing in action in U.S. wars since 1973: 12,387. Adding the wounded: 96,680.

Number of executions in U.S. history dating back to 1608: 15,269.

Number of executions in U.S. history dating back to 1930: 3,859.

Number of executions in U.S. history dating back to 1977 (after the Supreme Court lifted a decade-long moratorium): 1,099 through 2008.

Number killed in the September 11 attacks: 2,977.

Number of detainees waterboarded by the CIA under President Bush: 3.

Number of abortions in the U.S. since 1973: 53,310,843 through 2010.

Number of abortions per year in the U.S. since 1973: 1,402,917.

Number of abortions per month in the U.S. since 1973: 116,910.

Number of abortions per week in the U.S. since 1973: 26,979.

Number of abortions per day in the U.S. since 1973: 3,841.

Number of abortions by Planned Parenthood in the U.S. in 2009: 332,278, more than 900 per day, or 27.6% of all abortions in the U.S.

You know, there are a lot of issues I care about, as a conservative Republican. I don’t especially like having to draw lines in the sand over abortion, and if you’re reading this, even if you’re pro-life, chances are you don’t either. But it is useful at times to prick our consciences with the sheer scale of this atrocity, happening daily under our noses. Liberal activists and lawyers devote massive efforts every year to battling the death penalty - yet all the executions of the post-Roe era don’t even add up to a third of a day’s worth of the number of abortions. We agonize, and rightly so, over the cost in life of our wars - but the toll of abortion is equal to fighting the Battle of Antietam, or two Battles of Okinawa, every single week, or two entire Vietnam Wars every month. Our commentariat was racked with paroxysms of moral reproach over three prisoners being waterboarded, yet considers it gauche to even mention well over three thousand abortions daily, each of which destroys a biologically unique human being. (Your religion may override your regard for the science, but there’s no way around the fact that an unborn child has his or her own unique genetic code, the definitive scientific hallmark of an individual).

Numbers alone can’t make the moral judgments that constitute public policy for us. But they can certainly inform our sense of perspective. And looking at the number of abortions is a reminder that maybe, sometimes, we go too far in trying to make this just another issue.

Impact of Key Euthanasia Case in Canada

Canada may have the Mounties, but now they are facing a decision in their Superior Court, which will have a mounting impact on all of us. A case of euthanasia, that will have national importance, which will not only impact Canada, but eventually affect the rest of the world.

The Rasouli case in Canada will determine whether doctors are required to obtain the consent of the patient, the patient's guardian or the Consent and Capacity board, before withdrawing life support. This decision will apply to all life-sustaining interventions, including the withdrawal of hydration and nutrition. The case will be held in Canada's Superior Court on May 18th, 2011. It is a precedent setting case.

Background ... October of 2010, Mr. Hassan Rasouli developed bacterial meningitis and ventriculitis, following surgery to remove a benign tumor in his head. This infection caused fed through a g-tube in his stomach.

Mr. Rasouli's wife is a physician, who had practiced in Iran, and is his substitute decision maker who has refused withdrawal of his treatment. The hospital and doctors attempted to move Mr. Rasouli to another hospital, but to no avail.

The physicians believe that Mr. Rasouli is in persistent vegetative state (PVS), and as such, are not required to continue treatment, which they think will not benefit him. And in fact, they stated they are OBLIGED to refrain from continuing treatment, even if the patient or substitute decision maker does not agree.

What's at stake? If the doctors win the appeal at the Superior Court level, then the doctors will not be required to obtain consent before withdrawing life-support. The definition for life-support also includes food and fluids. Therefore, doctors will be able to withdraw fluids and food, without consent from a person in PVS, but not dying. Mr. Rasouli is profoundly handicapped, but he is not dying.

This is a cost issue. Does the cost of caring for Mr. Rasouli and all other brain damaged and disabled individuals, outweigh their values as human beings? This is the question the court will decide. They will also decide if food and fluids constitute life-support. But, the most important decision, the court will rule on, is the matter of WHO decides.

Consider carefully .. That this is not only a euthanasia case, but a case with tentacles into every aspect of medical decision making. Consider, if the doctors can make decisions over the withdrawal of your medical care, what's to stop them from imposing medical care .. possibly lobotomize a few of us?

David Bereit "The Tipping Point" Benefit for Lake County Right to Life

Friday, April 15, 2011

Planned Parenthood Exposed: Abby Johnson Tells the Inside Story

Illinois Senators Vote Against Defunding Planned Parenthood

U.S. Senators Richard Durbin (D) and Mark Kirk (R) both voted against a bill that would have de-funded the Planned Parenthood yesterday. The bill failed on a 42-58 vote. In addition to Kirk, Republicans voting against the amendment to de-fund Planned Parenthood were: Scott Brown (MA), Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK), and Olympia Snowe (ME). No Democratic Senators voted for the bill.

Illinois Review comments:
No one ever doubted radical left extremist Dick Durbin would vote against an effort to push Planned Parenthood from the federal gravy train, but there was hope that Illinois' brand new Republican senator Mark Kirk would support his Republican House colleagues' effort to stop special interest tax doleouts to Planned Parenthood. He did not.

Kirk has traveled throughout Illinois warning people at town hall meetings about the budget disaster America is facing because of uncontrolled spending. He has publicly boasted that the era of congressional earmarks is over. He told an audience downstate that he was for a 10 % across the board budget cut, including a 10% slice from Planned Parenthood's budget.

Because of all those factors there was hope that Kirk, who now represents the whole state of Illinois rather than the socially-liberal 10th Congressional District, would consider moderating his historical pro-abortion stance. There was hope that for the sake of budget cuts and the pending economic disaster he warns us against, consider voting to eliminate the morally-repugnant Planned Parenthood earmark.

We're not surprised with Senator Kirk's vote, but we're disappointed with it. He and Senator Durbin failed not only Illinoisans, they failed all American hard-working, self-sacrificing taxpayers.
Writing at his blog, Republican News Watch, conservative activist Doug Ibendahl comments:
Frankly no one should be surprised.

But Republicans, take note. It’s certainly true that Mark Kirk has no problem saying he’s pro-choice (yeah no kidding, as a U.S. Congressman he even voted in favor of partial birth abortion).

However on multiple occasions during last year’s campaign he would add a caveat to his otherwise 100% pro-abortion stance. Kirk repeatedly said he opposed federal funding of abortion.

So score yesterday’s vote as just one more lie by Mark Kirk. Add it to the list of countless dishonest things Kirk has said over the years in order to keep gullible voters and reporters in his camp.

Someone please remind me again, what was supposedly the difference between Mark Kirk and Alexi Giannoulias?

Oh that’s right, I remember. Both are very liberal – Kirk arguably more so.

But Mark Kirk brings that liberalism into our Republican Party – combines it with a rather disturbing inability to tell the truth – and continually undermines and dilutes the GOP brand from within.

Yeah, thank goodness the Democrats didn’t elect their “mob banker” Giannoulias.
My observation continues to be that no matter how fiscally conservative one is, if he's a social liberal, then socially liberal measures will take precedence over fiscal conservatism every time.

It's Not Nice To Fool Mother Nature - UN Treaty to Give Mother Earth her Rights

Mother Nature is asserting herself quite a bit these days, and the tree huggers are having their day in the UN. Bolivia has proposed a United Nations (UN) treaty to recognize the "rights" of Mother Earth. If the UN agrees to Bolivia's draft treaty, "Mother Earth" - including bugs and trees - are to be afforded an equal degree as that of humans! A Ministry of Mother Earth would be established. This would give Mother Earth her own special public official, an ombudsman, who is responsible for investigating citizens' complaints against government agencies, that might be infringing on the rights of any individual .. in this case "Mother Earth".

Balancing proper perspectives on things is a crucial determining factor, when judging the sanity, or lack thereof in individuals, whose judgment may be way off in their ability to judge the value of one thing over another. I knew a woman who began giving special attention to all packaging materials, such as egg cartons, paper towel rolls, meat containers etc., while neglecting to care for her own person. Her small apartment was cluttered to the ceiling, with carefully organized and stacked cardboard and Styrofoam containers, while she herself was poorly bathed and cleansed. She had developed such an imbalanced obsession over the value of these items, to the point where she was unable to discard any of them, resulting in her own human living space becoming more and more constricted. Her home was rapidly becoming a fire hazard, with inadequate exits in the event that a fire might occur.

And of course, we all know the worst example of unbalanced perspective, with Adolf Hitler, who cherished his German Shepherd, while he slaughtered his fellow men.

Pablo Salon, Bolivia's UN ambassador stated, "If you want to have balance, and you think that the only (entities) who have rights are humans or companies, then how can you reach balance?" The word "who" is the problem here with this whole approach. Who is the Who we are speaking of exactly? Is a Styrofoam container a who? Is a tree a who? Is Mother Earth, no matter how precious and sacred, a "Who"? Here is the problem. Giving human equality to bugs and tree.

We are to be good stewards of the earth, as well as all creation, which the good God has blest us with. There is no doubt that the earth needs to be sustained, through proper care and the containment of the blind destruction of it's resources; especially through mankind's greed and indifference of earth's gifts. But is giving the earth the quality of personhood, a rational approach? Does that mean that we ascribe an inanimate entity with the same qualities and state of being, as that of people? Anthropomorphism is a creative or lyrical and poetic style of writing, which endows inanimate objects with the same qualities as human beings. This is "creative license", where the author is free to transfer human qualities onto something which is not human. So, should UN Treaties be based upon anthropomorphism ... or creative license? I think there has been a bit too much creative license these days with the UN.

In Genesis Chapter 1, we read, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let him rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." This does not sound to me like God was equating the earth and all it's creatures with mankind! Man was specifically made in the image and likeness of God, while all the rest of creation was made to serve man. So, whose rights or needs are diminished, if earth is misused or destroyed? If we do not take care of our car ... who suffers? The car? The car is an inanimate object which serves me. If I ruin it through abuse and neglect, it will no longer be of service to me. I will be the one whose rights and needs are taken away, through my own ignorance and lack of moderation in the use of something that was designed to serve me. This does not mean that the UN should pass a treaty which endows my car with the same rights as myself.

Where is the proper balance and perspective here? We are giving rights to inanimate objects and animals, while the rights of the unborn are still denied across our planet. The rights of Mother Earth are now expected to supersede the rights of those beings, whose very lives she was created to serve and sustain. Yes, if we abuse and or neglect our earth and her resources and creatures, we will suffer. This is about human need and human rights, which should monitor how we treat our earth and it's resources. And of all the earth's resources, human life is it's highest and most precious resource. For if all human life were to vanish from earth's surface, I would venture to say, that Mother Earth herself, would not thrive for long .. at least in any advanced type of way. Perhaps that is why the dinosaurs died out, because there were no humans to keep things in their proper balance. The United Nations needs to get a proper balance on things here as well, and not place the rock upon which we exist, above we human beings whose lives God created it to serve and sustain, or we will be the next dinosaurs.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Lake County Legislators Oppose Women's Health

Readers of this blog, and subscribers to the Lake County Right to Life email service, already know about State Rep Darlene Senger's HB3156, which would bring abortion clinics under the same regulatory structure as other clinics that perform outpatient procedures. Dorie wrote about the bill here, and I wrote about it here. The bill was placed on delayed consideration yesterday after an initial tally fell three votes short of passing the bill. Another vote will be taken today.

As you can see from the above image (courtesy of Illinois Review), our Lake County delegation seems to want to keep those back alley abortions going strong.

When Bill Clinton said that he wanted abortion to be "safe, legal and rare," we knew he was lying about "rare," but now we see that pro-aborts aren't too interested in abortions being "safe," either, even for the mother. Our friend former State Rep. Cal Skinner at McHenry County Blog has more on regulating abortion clinics.

In the image above, we can see that:
  • State Rep. Mark Beaubien (R-52, 847-487-5252) was not voting. (UPDATE: Rumor has it that Beaubien is ill; we hope for his speedy recovery.)
  • State Reps. Karen May (D-58, 847-433-9100), Carol Sente (D-59, 847-680-5909) and Sandy Cole (R-62, 847-543-0062) all voted in opposition.
  • State Rep. Rita Mayfield (D-60, 847-599-2800), who professes to be pro-life, voted present, which has the same effect as a "nay" vote.
  • Of the Lake County delegation, only State Reps. Ed Sullivan, Jr., (R-51, 847-566-5115) and JoAnn Osmond (R-61, 847-838-6200) voted yea.
  • We can also see that GOP Leader Tom Cross likewise voted "nay", while Democrat Speaker Mike Madigan, who claims to be pro-life, voted "present."
Another vote will be taken today; we hope that you will contact your state representative immediately.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Conscience Wins! Blago Loses.

Illinois certainly has its problems; politically, morally, criminally and financially. And even our weather goes against us. If you live in Illinois, you're always looking for a bright spot, or a sunny day.

Recently, Illinois had a sunny day. The American Center for Law and Justice, on April 5, 2011, secured a major victory for Conscience Rights. The state court in Illinois issued a decision, striking down a state law, that compelled pharmacy owners to dispense Plan B, as well as other forms of emergency contraception; even if dispensing violated their religious or moral beliefs. This victory marks a milestone in Illinois and for the nation.

The senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice said, "Today's decision is a major victory for the rights of conscience". After six long years of litigation, our clients have finally prevailed against a state government, determined to coerce them and all pro-life pharmacists into violating their deeply held religious beliefs, or give up their livelihoods. Judge Belz's decision makes clear, that both Illinois state law and the First Amendment, will not permit this. This country was founded by people with a strong commitment to religious freedom. That's why freedom of religion is the first freedom protected in the Bill of Rights. For government at any level to try to run roughshod over that freedom, is to abdicate the government's primary responsibility."

This case came about, when our former Governor Rod Blagojevich, was in power. Now he's on
trial. In Illinois it seems most governors go on trial. But, while he was governor, before he was on trial, he mandated that all pharmacies dispense Plan B. This prompted two pharmacy owners, Luke VanderBleek and Glenn Kosirog, to file a complaint, alleging that Governor Rod Blagojevich violated the conscience rights of pharmacists and pharmacies. The case went to trial in March of 2010, where today, Judge John W Belz of the circuit court handed down his decision, in support of VanderBleek and Glenn Kosirog. That decision upholds the state's Health Care Right of Conscience Act, the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Co-counsel, Mark Rienzi of Catholic University's Columbus School of Law, stated, "In a pluralistic society that honors diversity there ought to be room for people like our clients to practice their professions without the threat of government sanctions."

After six long years of government oppression, the sun is shining in Illinois for conscience rights, and former Governor Rod Blagojevich is facing a prison term.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

To Know You Is To Love You - Abortion Advocates Oppose Ultrasound Bill

We have all heard recently about Donald Trump's conversion from being pro-abortion to becoming pro-life. Why? To know you is to love you, are the words to a song that used to play on the radio a while back.

Donald Trump explains what changed his heart concerning the abortion issue, telling CBN News' David Brody, that this change came as the result of a friend's experience. This friend of Donald's was upset over his wife becoming pregnant, because he really didn't want a baby. Trump goes on to tell how his friend actually cried, as he later relayed to Donald how the baby ultimately became the apple of his eye, stating, "It's the greatest thing that's ever happened to me." This apparently showed Donald, that just because someone thinks they don't want a baby, that a person cannot really know before hand, just how much that child will mean to them once they know it and love it.

So what happened to this father, who didn't want his baby to begin with - and whose experience changed Donald Trump's mind on abortion as well? What happened is that he met and came to know his child. He was introduced to his child, at some point in time, either at it's birth ... or perhaps during an ultrasound ... which is most likely what happened, because expectant women these days who seek prenatal care, will have an ultrasound. It's common practice these days. One way or the other, this father ultimately met and fell in love with his child. Before he knew his child, he did not want it. Once he knew his child, his heart was smitten, and he was moved to tears, to think how he had once not wanted it.

Knowing his child, for this young father, made all the difference. Could this be why abortion advocates are opposing an Ultrasound Bill, which would require by law, that a woman have an ultrasound prior to having an abortion? What are they afraid of? If abortion is simply the termination of a pregnancy, why should there be any fear of allowing a mother to see what, or rather who, she is terminating? Abortion advocates are now protesting, that this bill will risk a woman's health, by making abortion procedures more expensive and harder to get. The claim is that pro-life advocates want to create an atmosphere in which abortion is inaccessible, even though it is legal. Inaccessible? Not exactly the correct word here. Pro-lifers want to make abortion unimaginable to a woman, by introducing her to her child through ultrasound technology.

Safe, legal and rare, is the mantra of abortion advocates. So, why is it that they would be against any measures which might make abortion rare? Allowing a woman to actually see her child, before deciding upon destroying it, should be welcomed by anyone who truly wants abortion to be rare. Abbey Johnson, the former Planned Parenthood Leader's own turn around came, from witnessing an ultrasound abortion, which she painfully describes in the opening chapter to her book. Seeing is believing - A picture is worth a thousand words - And to know someone is to love them.

Jeremiah 1:5 states, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." God knew each and every one of us before He knit us in our mother's womb. Back in the days of the Old Testament, parents could not know their children before they were born; and they truly were only known to God. In Psalm 139:15 we also read, "My bones were not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret." But, the authors of these verses from the Old Testament, would be completely amazed at how a child's form is no longer hidden, and it is no longer formed "in secret". With today's modern technology, a woman can now know her child while it is still being formed in her womb. Today, people now have a window into that, which Old Testament writers once called "secret". Now, with today's ultrasound technology, who can say that we are formed in secret and known only to God, before we are born? But, Planned Parenthood would say, that our womb should remain a "secret". Planned Parenthood does not want us to know our children while they are being formed in our womb.

Planned Parenthood does not want women to know their children. They do not want fathers to meet and fall in love with their child. They want the evil of abortion to remain a carefully guarded "secret". This is not the "secret" of a child being formed in the womb, who is known only to it's Creator. This is the "secret" of those who perform their evil deeds in darkness. They want the womb to remain a dark and hidden place, so that they can perform murder under cover of stealth; and so that a mother and a father will never know or love their child.

Another Good Reason to De-Fund Planned Parenthood

They're not licensed!

McHenry County Blogger (and former GOP State Representative, and former libertarian gubernatorial candidate) Cal Skinner made a Freedom of Information Act request of the Illinois Department of Public Health to see all the licenses for Planned Parenthood clinics in Illinois.

As it turns out, there are no such licenses. No wonder they're so adamantly opposed to the regulation of abortion clinics!

Saturday, April 9, 2011

Defending the Indefensible - Abortion Activist Nonsuport of HB3156

Ever know someone who stubbornly kept arguing an erroneous opinion, to irrational extremes, defying all logic? I'm sure we've all experienced this type of personality in our lives; people who will even defend the indefensible. Usually pride is at the core of this type of irrationality .. sometimes ignorance .. and other times .. there is an agenda.

So, do Illinois abortion activists and feminist groups have an agenda in opposing a bill which would improve health and safety standards in abortion clinics; at least to the level of any ambulatory surgical treatment center, or even veterinary clinic standards? Talk about stubbornly defending the indefensible. What is the agenda here?

The horrifying and grizzly case of abortionist Kermit Gosnell, accused of murdering born-alive babies from abortions, and overdosing one of the mother's to death, is spelled out in a 261-page grand jury report, which describes the deplorable conditions of the clinic in which he performed his atrocities. This case prompted Illinois State Representative Darlene Senger (R-Naperville) to introduce HB3156, a bill which would raise the health standards of abortion clinics. Good idea, you say? Pro-abortion advocates would disagree.

HB3156 (The Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center Act), would raise reproductive health care facility standards to be comparable to other outpatient surgical centers. Current law exempts reproductive health care centers from meeting even basic building code standards; standards which are even required of most veterinary clinics in Illinois. HB3156 sought to ensure the basic safety to the health of women entering reproductive health care centers, so that the reprehensible situation in Dr. Gosnell's "horror chamber" could never be repeated.

So who could argue against a law such as HB3156, which is clearly in the best interest of women's health and safety? ACLU's Executive Director Colleen Connell stated, "HB3156 would impose unconstitutional burdens on the fundamental right to terminate a pregnancy." Unconstitutional burdens? Did we hear her right? Yes we did. Once again, the defense of the indefensible, prompts the irrational. ACLU's opposition was so irrational and unbalanced, that they even staged protests outside State Rep. Senger's Naperville office last week, with signs that read, "Since when is my uterus any of your business?" and "HB3156 is bad for women." Health and safety concerns are bad for women? Yes, you heard that right.

So what is at the root of this irrational and indefensible position? Just what are abortion activists so vehemently defending anyway? Because it certainly does not sound like they are defending women, when they oppose a bill, which is clearly written to protect the health and safety of women. And it goes without saying, that they are certainly not defending the unborn babies, who are the most defenseless victims of their slaughter houses.

So what are they so passionately defending? The answer .. Abortion .. pure and simple. Why? Abortion has become like a sacrament to it's proponents and defenders. They are blinded by a blood-lust which can only mirror that of ancient pagans who sacrificed their children to the Baals, or the Aztecs who drank the blood of their sacrificial victims. Too dramatic, you say? Well, think about it. Any time human beings enter into any kind of immoral blood letting, the human psyche is deformed. The abortion activists defend abortion with the fervor of a missionary, because they are ensconced in a madness that has overtaken their reason and their humanity. They will defend their sacred cow at any cost.

There is no reason or logic here. There is only madness .. the madness of the indefensible position of abortion.

Friday, April 8, 2011

President Promises To Use Anyone's Good Ideas

...unless the idea is school choice!

How Low Have the Mighty Fallen? Terry Cosgrove's Nomination to Illinois Human Rights Commission Approved

The Illinois Senate wasted no time yesterday, April 7th, in approving Democrat Governor Patrick Quinn's appointee Terry Cosgrove, to the Illinois Human Rights Commission. Terry Cosgrove is the President and CEO of Personal PAC, Planned Parenthood's political action committee. Through Personal PAC, Cosgrove has worked tirelessly to elect pro-abortion lawmakers.

Terry Cosgrove is a 58 yr. old man - who not only lives - but revels in an open homosexual lifestyle, as his personal identity. His profile also reads like a who's who of the abortion world ... on top of his responsibilities as President and CEO of Personal PAC, he has managed numerous political campaigns for pro-choice candidates, assisted NARAL, Planned Parenthood's NOW, National Pro-Choice Resource Center and Voters for Choice, just to name a few. He helped restore abortion services for poor women at Cook County Hospital, and the Chicago Abortion Fund rewarded Cosgrove's virulent pro-choice activity, with their "Freedom of Choice" award.

Illinois Citizens for Ethics, a new state political action committee, opposed Terry's confirmation. Mary-Louise Kurey, Vice President of Public Relations for Illinois Citizens for Ethics, said, "In order to receive Personal PAC's endorsement, candidates must agree with a number of extreme positions, including repealing Illinois' Parental Notice of Abortion law for minor girls, (which Cosgrove approves repealing) and restoring public funding of abortion coverage through the state Medicaid plan (which Cosgrove supports). Overwhelming majorities of Illinois voters oppose such radical policies," she concluded. Kurey also stated, "Cosgrove's appointment was a conflict of interest and "an example of pay-to-play politics at its worst."

Personal PAC, of which Cosgrove is President and CEO, spent over $400,000 on Democratic Governor Quinn's campaign for reelection last November. These monies were used on TV ads, mailers and robocalls, which painted Quinn's opponent Bill Brady, as a pro-life extremist, who was insensitive to the needs of women.

We've come a long way from the ideals of the Civil Rights movement, which sought justice and equality for all. The confirmation to the Illinois Human Rights Commission, of a virulently pro-abortion activist is an abomination, which confirms the fact, that the face of human rights has undergone a dramatic change. Now serving the poor has mutated to obliterating them through abortion. Once again - how low the mighty have fallen - and how once noble and humanitarian ideals, have become deformed and perverted.

The Cosgrove confirmation squeaked by with a vote of 30-25, with two voting present. Our own Lake County Senators, Dan Duffy (R) and Suzi Schmidt (R) deserve credit for voting No. You might want to call them and say Thanks.

How Low The Mighty Have Fallen

"How low the mighty have fallen" is an old statement, which expresses the trap which human nature can fall, once it has risen to certain heights. Historical figures such as Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, are only two examples of men who rose to great heights, only to end up meeting ignominious ends. Mighty empires have risen to great heights, only to come to crashing ends; the most well known of these being the mighty Roman Empire.

I am once again reminded of this statement, as I view the TV mini-series titled, "The Kennedys". This TV docudrama has brought back many nostalgic memories of my childhood, and what it was like to be a young American girl, living through the period which was termed "Camelot". I was only a sophomore in high school, the day President John Kennedy was assassinated, and the idyllic world of my childhood came crashing to an end. Not many years later, Bobby Kennedy's run for the presidency, offered a promise of Camelot's return, only to be shattered once again, by his assassination. I can personally say, that the world has never seemed the same to me.

But, how low have the mighty fallen - and who are they? Were the Kennedy's mighty? They certainly seemed that way to a young idealistic girl of the 60's. Later of course, as the docudrama reveals, I learned just how flawed my heroes were. Of course all youth has it's idealism shattered in one way or another, as we are introduced to the more sobering realities of life.

Still, this docudrama also brings back to memory, in spite of their human foibles, the fact that the Kennedy brothers, John and Bobby, were mighty heroes of a human sort. We see in the story, how they fight against the blatant inequalities between Blacks and Whites, which plagued our nation at that time; inequalities, which my children's generation would be shocked and appalled at. The great Civil Rights movement, which John and Bobby championed, along with other mighty figures, such as Martin Luther King Jr. and many others, was a legacy that will exonerate John and Bobby in my mind at least, in spite of what ever other human flaws they possessed.

I always saw John and Bobby as men of real compassion for their fellow men. Boys who grew up in what might me called, an ivory tower compared to millions of other Americans; they did not see their ivory tower as an entitled privilege, rather something which placed a huge responsibility upon them, to help others have a chance at the American dream. The contrast between their own childhood, in comparison to the childhood's of America's Blacks in particular, inspired them to fight to make our country and our world a better place for all.

The Kennedy's were Democrats. This political party then became synonymous with champions of the underprivileged and down-trodden, after the days of the Civil Rights movement, and the legacy of the Kennedy's. But, what happened? What does this democratic champion of human rights stand for today? Do they still represent the ideals of John and Bobby? Or have they fallen far from their once noble position?

Today, the Democratic Party is the major supporter of abortion on demand. As John and Bobby once fought for the rights of all, today's Democrats fight for the rights of a woman, while ignoring the rights of her helpless unborn child. In fact, John and Bobby's own brother Teddy Kennedy, was a major supporter of every ignominious platform of the Democratic Party, to which his idealistic brothers once belonged. Planned Parenthood, the nations largest abortion provider, has made numerous and hefty contributions, almost exclusively to Democratic candidates, via their political action committee.

Now, 41 Democrats in the Senate have stated they would not support legislation ending taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood. In fact, they say, that if they cannot fund the nations' largest abortion provider, they will shut down the government. How low the once mighty champions of humanity have fallen. Why?

As history will teach us, too often when mankind reaches a certain zenith, he forgets something. And when he forgets, he falls. Too often, those who start out with noble intentions, end up forgetting those intentions, because they become too full of themselves, and forget their purpose as a result. "Empty yourselves of yourselves", Christ said. This is the pitfall that all of us who start out with good intentions must avoid at all cost - otherwise - "The best intentions of mice and men oft times go astray" becomes the sad fate of the Mighty.

Dems: If We Can't Fund Abortion, We Won't Fund Anything

I never doubted it would come to this.  If they can't fund the nation's largest abortion provider, they'll shut down the government.   Isn't 53 million innocents lost enough?  Do they have to involve you and I in it as well?  Jake Tapper has the story:

His meeting with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., having concluded, President Obama came to the White House briefing room this evening to report “additional progress” had been made and “differences have been narrowed.”

But outstanding issues remain, he cautioned, ones so important – to both sides - the president said he wouldn’t express “wild optimism” that there will be a deal.

Democratic sources tell ABC News that things “feel better now” in terms of a deal being cut, but the major sticking point remains the GOP rider prohibiting any federal funding to Planned Parenthood or any of its affiliates.

...The stickiest issue will end up being Planned Parenthood.”

The House voted earlier this year to de-fund Planned Parenthood but 41 Democrats in the Senate already have said they would not support legislation ending funding to Planned Parenthood, making the matter one that could be filibustered. The White House has said the president would not agree to any ban on funding to Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood is already prohibited from using any federal funds for abortion-related services. Officials of the organization say more than 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood clinics do has nothing to do with abortion, but rather focuses on women’s health services such as pap smears and breast cancer screening.

Abortion opponents say federal funding for other services means money freed up for the purposes of conducting abortions, which they regard as ending human life.

The claim that the bulk of Planned Parenthood's operation is not abortion is simply a lie.  A boldfaced, easily disproved lie.  And it's also been proved that they don't do breast cancer screenings, either, but they're still harping on that one as well.

That President Obama would take this to the brink to protect Planned Parenthood comes as no surprise.  This is the most pro-abortion president in history.

(Cross posted from the Northern Illinois Patriots blog.)

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Have you ever seen a baby porcupine?

Have you ever seen a baby porcupine?

Fable of the porcupine
It was the coldest winter ever. Many animals died because of the cold. The porcupines, realizing the situation, decided to group together to keep warm. This way they covered and protected themselves; but the quills of each one wounded their closest companions. After awhile, they decided to distance themselves one from the other and they began to die, alone and frozen. So they had to make a choice: either accept the quills of their companions or disappear from the Earth. Wisely, they decided to go back to being together. They learned to live with the little wounds caused by the close relationship with their companions in order to receive the heat that came from the others. This way they were able to survive.

Moral of the story: The best relationship is not the one that brings together perfect people, but when each individual learns to live with the imperfections of others and can admire the other person's good qualities.

The real moral of the story is: Just learn to live with the Quills in your life!

Thanks for the Phone Calls and keep Them up

Great News - Senate Resolution 92 is Dead!

Senator Kimberly Lightford, sponsor of SR92 supporting the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, has withdrawn the resolution. She has stated that she is dropping it entirely. According to Scott Woodruff of the Home School Legal Defense Association, the many phone calls and information given to her "broadened her understanding and convinced her that the Convention on the Rights of the Child is not a good idea."

Thank you for your phone calls following our report yesterday. Contacting our elected state officials clearly makes a difference!

It is unfortunate that we need to continue to be vigilant concerning the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child at the federal level where it is still being considered.

Victory for Pro-life Pharmacists in Illinois

In 2005, Gov. Rod Blagojevich established a rule in Illinois requiring all pharmacists to fill prescriptions for morning after pills. This rule put pharmacists in the position of having to choose between following their conscience or risk being fined or losing their license.

Following a six year legal battle, in which the American Center for Law and Justice represented two pharmacy owners, Luke VanderBleek and Glenn Kosirog, the law has been struck down. Yesterday Circuit Court Judge John W. Belz declared that the state law violates Illinois' Health Care Right of Conscience Act, the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Francis Manion, Senior Counsel for the ACLJ, put it this way: "Today's decision is a major victory for the rights of conscience. After six long years of litigation, our clients have finally prevailed against a state government determined to coerce them and all pro-life pharmacists into violating their deeply held religious beliefs or give up their livelihoods. Judge Belz's decision makes clear that both Illinois state law and the First Amendment will not permit this."

The Illinois Ultrasound Opportunity Act - HB786 - Came Out of Committee Today!

The committee vote was 10 yes, 1 no and 1 present. A floor vote is expected soon: now is the time to act! It is sure to encounter opposition. Lake County Right to Life, Inc. strongly supports Illinois HB 786, the Ultrasound Opportunity Act. This bill, sponsored by Rep. Brandon Phelps, states that any physician who is performing an abortion must offer the pregnant woman the opportunity to have an ultrasound. It's her choice before an abortion.

Lake County Right to Life urges Illinois citizens to contact their state representatives to support the Ultrasound Opportunity Act. It is good public policy and protects people.

Action Needed in Illinois

There are three pro-life bills moving in the Illinois House of the Illinois General Assembly and votes are expected to come early next week.

Please contact your state representatives and urge them to vote YES on HB 786 (Ultrasound Opportunity Act - requires that a woman be offered the right to see an ultrasound before she can get an abortion -- it is her choice whether to see the ultrasound or not) and HB 2321 (amends the Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center Act -- requires abortion clinics to meet all the same health and safety standards as all other ambulatory surgical treatment centers).

Note: Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Centers (ASTCs) are outpatient surgical centers that do surgeries like eye surgeries or foot surgeries. Abortion clinics are ASTCs but a court settlement in the late 1980s allows them to have lower health and safety standards than all other ASTCs. Why should women going to abortion clinics have less health and safety requirements protecting them than other ASTCs?

A third pro-life bill -- HB 2093 -- amends the Illinois Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act to re-state that medical personnel and counselors at facilities that provide abortions, abortion referrals or contraceptives must report any reasonable suspicion that a child known to them may be an abused child or a neglected child has little or no opposition and should be passed in the Illinois House next week.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Chicago "LIFE Mob" Strikes Again! ☩ PART TWO

Great View in more than one way

Baby Boy A - What's In A Name?

There's a familiar question - what's in a name? It provokes us to really look at the meaning of giving someone a name or moniker. In English, the question, "what's your name", sounds matter of fact. In the Latin Romance languages, such as the Spanish, "Como Se Lama", which interprets to English "How are you called", seems to touch a little more deeply on the subject of "what's in a name".

The giving or changing of a name in the Bible is quite important, as we read how God changed Abram's name to Abraham, Jacob's name to Israel, and ultimately Simon's name to Peter. There is even a childhood fairy tale, titled "Rumpelstiltskin" wherein a woman is forced to guess the name of a mischievous gnome, if she is ever to win back her kidnapped baby from the devious wretch. To this day, much excitement goes into the naming of a new baby ... and even the naming of pets. In the many cemeteries for those killed in wars, the saddest are always those in unmarked graves. In Arlington National Cemetery in fact, a special "Tomb of the Unknown Soldier" was erected in 1921, as a shrine to specially honor unknown and unidentified soldiers. To this day, a special "Society of the Honor Guard" keeps perpetual vigil over this tomb, in memoriam to these soldiers whose names are unknown.

What's in a name? Quite a bit I would say. It's almost as if you really don't exist until you know how you are called; or more importantly, who your father is. Even pets soon learn how they are called by their masters.

So, who is Baby Boy A and why is he called only thus? There is a a criminal grand jury case against an abortionist, Kermit Gosnell, who stands accused of butchering seven babies after they were born alive, as well as fatally drugging one of the mothers. The Grand Jury case against this man, has a 261 page report, which includes a photo of "Baby Boy A", whose neck was allegedly slit by Gosnell. This poor little nameless baby boy, is simply relegated to evidence in a criminal case, by the moniker " Baby Boy A".

The horrors of this case are beyond description, in which Gosnell repeatedly murdered babies, born alive after he aborted them well beyond the legal limits, by slitting their necks and severing their spinal cords, in order to, in his own words, "ensure fetal demise". People are rightfully horrified, shocked and appalled at this gruesome and macabre story, which defies reason; and the case against this man is fully and completely justifiable.

But I would put forth, that Baby Boy A, is merely one of many nameless little victims of abortion. Baby Boy A's case is only brought to court because he was murdered after he was outside his mother's womb. As such, our societal conscience is still sensitive enough not to want to see a newly born infant's throat slit, while it moves and squirms and struggles to take it's first breaths outside the womb. And so, Gosnell is charged with the 7 counts of murder in the deaths of what are termed, "viable babies". Viable because they were outside the womb and gestationally old enough to continue life outside the womb.

So again, what's in a name .. viable? The dictionary definition of this moniker, in brief, is that it indicates a person or state, capable of existing independently .. ie ... such as a child that can sustain life outside it's mother's womb. This is one of the biggest excuses used by pro-abortion advocates, in their reasoning of a woman's right superseding that of her child, because she is viable, while her child, as long as it is still dependent upon her body to sustain life, is not.

And so, the abortionist Kermit Gosnell is only charged with murder of these infants, simply because they were considered "viable". What's in a name? For those women who sought Gosnell's services, or the services of any abortionist, when they were not far enough along in their pregnancy for their baby to be deemed "viable", Gosnell's work would be, according to our current laws, completely legal and not considered murder. And their children would never be called by any name.

The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier is a special shrine to honor all those fallen, whose names are unknown to us. Yet, though we may not know their names, they did have names; unlike the millions of little Baby A B Cs all the way to Z's, who no one called by name. No one except for God that is. In Isaiah ch. 43 we read, "I have called you by name: you are mine." Don't worry little Baby Boy A, you do have a name .. even if we don't know it ... God does, and He has called you by your name.

Who Weeps For These - What Makes Us Cry

As a young child, my mother taught me a valuable lesson about morbid curiosity. She greatly abhorred the voyeuristic habit of onlookers who would rush to the scenes of car accidents, out of a sick need to satisfy some inner blood lust. Our modern movies and television programs have taken the place of the Roman Colosseum, where our modern morbid curiosity towards violence and gore can be satiated; all from the comfort of our living room couch.

Some would say we have become desensitized by the daily exposure to gruesome scenes in movies and television. Perhaps. But what makes us cry? What really reaches down into the deepest part of us to stab at our heart? Do the morbidly curious onlookers of a car accident, stand there in tears, as they view the suffering of a fellow human being? Are they merely desensitized because of being immersed in the violence of modern entertainment? Or is it the same blood lust which also tempted the ancient Romans, who delighted in the violence of the arena.

When we see images of aborted babies, we are shocked - some are offended - others scandalized - but how many are moved to tears? When we watch scenes of victims of the Nazi death camps on newsreels, or the victims of a tsunami, war or famine, do we weep? Or do we simply retreat somewhere inside ourselves to that place of security, where we are simply glad that it is not us.

What does it take to reach our hearts? The abortion issue is easily relegated to an intellectual and political debate, because of a desensitization that has taken place, long before babies were being killed in the womb. When people used to go to a hanging with picnic baskets, and rush to the scene of a car accident to satisfy their morbid curiosity, or just look on and walk by with indifference, as in the story of the "Good Samaritan".

To be perfectly honest with you, I have seen more people cry over the suffering and abuse of animals, than that of their fellow man. Why? I'm sure each of you has your own ideas of what is at the root of the problem here. And I could go on and on enumerating my many thoughts on the subject. But then this blog would become a novel. I simply want each of us to ask ourselves, what makes us cry? In the well known account of The Good Samaritan, Jesus teaches us who is our neighbor; that all are our brothers and sisters, from the poor, the elderly, the disadvantaged to our little brothers and sisters in the womb.

Ezekiel 36:26 "I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts." I am my brother's keeper and he is mine. He weeps for me, and I weep for him.

Pro-Life Flash Mob at Joe Scheidler Tribute

Pharmacists' Conscience Rights Restored

Illinois Review has the story:
Americans United for Life President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest applauded a decision today from an Illinois circuit court that struck down a state administrative rule forcing pharmacists and pharmacies to dispense “emergency contraception” against their conscientious beliefs. Long involved in the case, AUL first represented the plaintiffs in 2005 when Morr-Fitz, Inc. vs. Blagojevich was filed.

The complaint alleged that then Gov. Rod Blagojevich violated the conscience rights of pharmacists and pharmacies by requiring them to dispense “emergency contraception” against their religious convictions. As the case has proceeded, AUL’s involvement included two amicus curiae briefs on behalf of national medical organizations in support of the plaintiffs and the conscience rights of all health care providers in the state of Illinois. Click here and here to read those briefs.

In today’s ruling, the court found that the rule was improperly aimed only at pharmacists and pharmacies holding religious convictions. While proponents of the draconian rule claim it is necessary in order to ensure availability of “emergency contraception,” the court noted that not a single person has ever been unable to obtain “emergency contraception” because of a pharmacist’s religious objection.

Dr. Yoest commended the state court: “For six years, pharmacists and pharmacies have been bullied by the state of Illinois into choosing between violating their religious beliefs or violating the law. We applaud the Illinois circuit court for permanently striking this unconstitutional rule.”

Monday, April 4, 2011

Obligation Catholic or Christ Centered Catholic?

A recent survey by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) revealed Catholics surpassed other Christians, and even the mainstream public, when it came to supporting homosexual unions, marital or civil.
The poll was broken down into 3 different groups of Catholics - those who attend mass weekly .. ie.. Sunday obligation Catholics - those who attend maybe once or twice a month - and those who attend less often .. probably not at all. The findings shockingly showed that even among weekly mass attendees, only 31% were against any legal recognition of legal unions for homosexuals.
The survey seemed to recognize a generational aspect to these opinions as well, with the younger Catholics being far more agreeable to any type of homosexual lifestyle tolerance. Mark M. Gray, Ph.D., director of CARA Catholic Polls and research associate for the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University, stated, ""Over time there's been a growing percentage of people who agree specifically with the questions about civil unions and marriage." "A lot of it we see in generational differences."
Of course, the PRRI survey is primarily funded by the Arcus Foundation, which was founded by gay rights billionaire Jon Stryker. As such, these findings of Catholic acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle would be right up their alley.
Msgr. Charles Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington lamented, "In the Church I think we have to accept that a generational shift has occurred, both in the Church and in the culture. And it has happened on our watch." He was referring to the silence from the pulpits on matters of Church teaching and doctrine.
But I would put forth, that there has been another group of Catholics, who have slid under the radar of PRRI's survey. A 4th group of Catholics who do not fit in with any of the other 3 groups surveyed, They are not the "some time church attendees" .. or even the "Sunday obligation Catholics". I am speaking of those Catholics who truly live Christ centered lives; many of whom even attend daily Mass and Communion, as much as their schedule allows. They may even get in a Holy Hour or two during their week, along with all their other prayers and devotions. Most of all, their faith is not merely rote for them; they have a personal relationship with their Lord and Savior, and truly attempt to live according to the teachings of Christ in the gospels, as discerned through the teachings of His Holy Catholic Church.
I would suggest that if these Christ centered Catholics were ever polled, the surveyors might get a big surprise. Yes, the sad tragedy is that this last group of Catholics would be among the minority - a remnant, as they are oft times called. Nevertheless, Christ began His Church with only a scraggly group of 12 nondescript men.
The early Christians were willing to give their lives for their faith; much less would they have acquiesced to the pagan opinions of their day. What has happened to this type of Christian? Are they still around today? Would the pollers be able to find justificaiton for their immorality by polling Catholics such as those who were willing to be burned at the stake, rather than deny Christ?
At daily morning masses all across our nation, a faithful remnant, prayerfully and devotedly kneel at the foot of the cross, offering their lives along with their Lord and Savior, as He is crucified all over again in this modern day. In devout Catholic homes all across the country, mothers and fathers teach the virtues and the Beatitudes to their children through word and example. Their numbers may be low in the polls, but they are the living witnesses that the message of the gospels as preserved through Christ's Church, is still alive; and that Truth is not something which is subject to popularity in the polls.

Sunday, April 3, 2011

Coming Soon To A School System Near You

French teacher suspended, fired, and forfeits public social benefits for showing pro-life film in class (H/T: Acts of the Apostasy):
Philippe Isnard, 40, a history teacher who was suspended last November for having provided pro-life materials and shown images of aborted babies during a debate about abortion in his 10th grade class in Manosque, France, was fired from the National Education system on Thursday.

Isnard lost his position without salary, benefits or any right to financial compensation via the social welfare system.

He told he was “stunned” by the severity of the decision, even though he was beyond hoping for complete exoneration.

Revocation constitutes the harshest possible disciplinary measure for a teacher in the French public education system. Graded 4 on a scale of 1 to 4 of possible disciplinary measures, a full revocation can only be pronounced by the Education minister himself. It puts a full stop to the father-of-two’s teaching career in all state-funded schools.

The controversy around Isnard began last fall when several parents started a public campaign against the history teacher after he showed students aged 15 to 16 graphic video footage entitled, “No Need to Argue.”

The French mainstream media were quick to pick up the story. Fueled by a pro-abortion feminist organization, “Prochoix,” the campaign provoked angry media reactions calling on the Education ministry to take measures against Isnard.

The education minister, Luc Chatel, responded by publicly criticizing the teacher, saying: “What has happened is unacceptable. Professors are under obligation to respect neutrality and to have respect for the person.”

Shortly after Isnard was temporarily suspended in November, a “psychological counseling unit” was set up at Les Iscles high school to support students who had participated in the abortion debate. Reportedly no students have made use of its services.

The local Planned Parenthood was also invited into Les Iscles high school to follow up the debate, meeting with the students in groups of five.

For his part, Isnard has argued that he encouraged debate in the class. Students were encouraged to bring their own material, either for or against abortion, while Isnard himself provided Simone Veil’s Assembly speech promoting the first French law legalizing abortion, now known as the “Loi Veil,” pro-life video clips, a pro-life tract and “No Need to Argue.”

He says he warned his students about the shocking nature of some of the materials to be presented and told them they were free to leave the class if they wished.
Here in Illinois, biennial School Board elections take place on Tuesday of this week. When you go to vote, will you know how tolerant to pro-life views the people on your school board ballot are?

More liberal tolerance of opposing views.

Saturday, April 2, 2011

Pay to Play

Gov. Quinn Nominates Supporter to Key Post

Illinois' premier pro-abortion activist, Terry Cosgrove, Executive Director of Personal PAC, claims credit for electing Democrat Pat Quinn as Illinois Governor last November, and well he might. His organization's vile, lying, misleading and mean-spirited ads, mailings and calls slandered Republican Bill Brady -- and many other candidates besides.

Is Governor Quinn grateful? You bet your sweet bippy!
Last week, Governor Pat Quinn nominated abortion rights leader Terry Cosgrove to fill an opening on Illinois' Human Rights Commission. Next Thursday, Cosgrove's nomination will be heard before the Senate Executive Appointments Committee.

Cosgrove, the 58 year old CEO of Personal PAC, plans to continue directing his pro-abortion political action committee while he serves part-time on the commission. Personal PAC's generous $400,000 campaign donation to Governor Quinn's campaign in 2010 is stirring another round of Quinn "pay to play" buzz.

Cosgrove's Facebook photo (right) is pretty indicative of his pro-Quinn, anti-Brady partiality in the 2010 governor's race. You've got to wonder how impartial he'd be voting on the Human Rights Commission, don't you?
Certainly, no one could reasonably hope that Cosgrove would support human rights for all humans. Cosgrove's vision of "human rights" is something that mere humanity doesn't qualify you for.

And Quinn's vision of public service is something that mere public service isn't a qualification for. In both cases, something... extra is required.

And, oh yeah, this is the same guy who sent out this mailing about me during my campaign in a Republican primary.

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

Friday, April 1, 2011

Planned Parenthood Forgets the Lesson of Pinocchio

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, appeared on CNN's Headline News channel, protesting the def-funding of her organization, stating that this would "prevent it from providing women with mammogram services." Now, a media watchdog group is calling on CNN to set the straight, regarding Ms. Richard's statement, which has since been proven false by the pro-life group, Live Action.

Live Action released videotaped footage revealing 30 calls made to Planned Parenthood centers in 27 different states, where the abortion facility staff was asked if a mammogram could be performed on their site. The response from every one of the abortion facilities, without exception, was that they could not do mammograms, and that the women would have to go elsewhere to obtain one. I guess Cecile Richards mother never read her the story about Pinocchio; the story of the little wooden puppet, who had to learn the benefits of truthfulness, and the consequences of telling lies. The abortion industry is riddled with lies, that totally eclipse the prevarication of the little wooden head.

Live Action has presented their findings to CNN Headline News (HLN) offering them the opportunity to show true journalistic integrity. How will HLN respond? We don't yet know. But, Planned Parenthood's response to the expose has been to attack Live Action, while conveniently avoiding the mammogram issue, claiming it is a false charge. Planned Parenthood stated that their abortion business provides a wide range of preventive health care services to millions of women. Well, while, we know that millions of women have had multiple abortions at their facilities, we still know very little of how many other services are obtained through their organization. Apparently mammograms aren't one of those services. And apparently being truthful to the women they profess to serve, is also not one of the benefits they provide. Pinocchio's nose has nothing on Planned Parenthood's proboscis.