Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Rainbow - Not The Trout - Scholarship

Illinois is known for its' pay to play. It's also known for its' political corruption. Now, it will be known as the 1st state to have a school, where students will be automatically eligible for a scholarship, if they consider themselves to be a member of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered) community. Gosh, "Win one for the Gipper" has taken on a whole new meaning. Now, he no longer needs his football scholarship, because he has his gender orientation scholarship.

A liberal arts college, located just outside of Chicago, is boasting on its' website, that it's the 1st undergraduate program to ask the gender question. "Do you wear rainbow"? (just kidding) They're asking students if they consider themselves a member of the LGBT community?  The school, Elmhurst College, is on record in saying, that the question, of course, is optional. But, if you choose to answer, and your answer is "yes", you can get up to 30% of tuition assistance. This might incite a whole new sexual orientation dilemma, for those who are trying to decide what and who they are. This will definitely encourage a decision over one's sexual orientation, in favor of LGBT, based on such a monetary reward. There will be a whole lot more people coming out of closets, whether they're in one or not.

 Mr Gary Rold, Elmhurst's dean of admissions, in speaking with the Sun Times, stated, "increasing diversity is part of our mission statement, " he told the news service. "This is simply closing the loop, in many ways, of another group who has a very strong identity."  (crisis?) quote cont. "It may not be race and religion, but it's an important part of who they are."  Not the rock group "Who" - and not Horton's "Who". 

The president of the college agrees wholeheartedly, stating, "Entirely consistent with our mission and vision, to prepare students to understand and respect the diversity of the world's cultures and peoples." David Smith, executive director of the Illinois Family Institute, takes issue with the college's comparison of sexual orientation with ethnicity, with his statement, "In defending their decision to include a question about sexual orientation, by asserting an offensive and absurd comparison of race, to a condition constituted by subjective desire and volitional sexual acts, Elmhurst College administrators reveal their own ignorance."   

We couldn't agree more with David's statement.  The whole argument of the LGBT community these days, spear-headed by people like Lady Gaga, is that because you were born LGBT, that you can't help being "who you are".  This is the error, that David Smith is highlighting here; their contention that because they were born with a certain sexual orientation, that they "can't help it", the same as one cannot help one's ethnic birth. No, one cannot ever change one's ethnicity. But, one can choose to overcome a sexual orientation. There's the huge difference, that those like Lady Gaga and Elmhurst college, are refusing to acknowledge.  Their same logic, would have to include,  pedophiles and any other proclivity. Why not have a scholarships for all of them?

 Elmhurst is affiliated with the liberal leaning United Church of Christ, which became the first denomination in the country to ordain an openly gay minister.

In Illinois, pay to play takes on a new meaning. How many more colleges will follow Elmhurst's lead?  I just don't see the justification here, for giving LGBT students a tuition break for "diversity"? What do readers of this blog think about this? Because I am at a loss for words on this one. The Rainbow Trout truly cannot help it's color.

Monday, August 29, 2011

It Really is a Mad, Mad World

In a news flash from England, it seems as if Splice has met the Planet of the Apes.  The Daily Mail reported that British scientists " have created more than 150 human-animal hybrid embryos" in British laboratories.  Now, if it can happen in Britain, it can happen anywhere.  At least Britain has some regulations.  In fact, truth be told, I know many countries do not have regulations.  Few countries tell the truth about anything when it comes to science and scientific experimentation. 

Just a personal aside, I always thought God created, but in our brave new world, man has taken over that job.  Like any job that man takes away from God, man becomes the loser in the end.  In our brave new world, man has become mad in his quote the British Mail, "the hybrids have been produced in secret over the past three years by researchers looking into possible cures for a wide range of diseases."  Have we heard that before?  I think we have.  Embryonic stem cell research has been sold to the public as a panacea of cures for every disease.  This has produced a government funded disaster -  no cures, but lots of bodies and more promises from the"scientific" community.

A wise priest long ago said, "all social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering."  Boy is this coming home to roost.  Movies abound about transhumanism.  In the movie, Planet of the Apes, poor Charlton Heston was simply mixed up, but he was mixed up with a bunch of very smart apes.  The remake of this movie is astounding.  It doesn't deal with the problems that Charlton dealt with, instead it has progressed, along with society, to modern day lack of ethics.  In the remake, the scientist is looking for a cure for Alzheimer's disease.  After all, his father is suffering from dementia labeled as Alzheimer's.  In the movie, his violation of medical ethics is justified by his desire to find a cure for his father.  Of course, the movie doesn't talk about ethics or consequences of actions, but only concentrates on relieving the emotional anxiety of the son.

Fast forward to Britain in today's world.  The Daily Mail reported "155 'admixed embryos' containing both human and animal genetic material have been created since the introduction of the 2008 Human Fertilization Embryology Act.  "This legalized the creation of a variety of hybrids, including an animal egg fertilized by a human sperm; cybrids, in which a human nucleus is implanted into an animal cell; and chimerias, in which human cells are mixed with animal embryos."  This is not too far from the movie Splice.  These hybrids, we are told, are killed within 14 days, if you can believe that.  In Splice, the scientists couldn't bring themselves to kill what they had created until it killed one of them.

Splice, the movie, depicted two scientists who spliced human DNA with animal DNA and produced a creature that was human in some aspects, but never lost its brute animal character.  Now if the United States can have a movie about this topic that the British Mail just discovered, imagine what else is going on in laboratories around the world. Greedy mad scientists are playing God.  Of course, they think they are doing God's work.  This is because when they look in the mirror in the morning, they see the creator rather than the creature. 

Humans Beware! 

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Illinois Judge Rules Against Catholic Charities

Illinois Judge Rules Against Catholic Charities

Bishop Says Illinois Political Establishment at War with the Catholic Community

        On Thursday, August 18, Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Schmidt ruled that the State of Illinois may legally refuse to renew its foster care and adoption contracts with Catholic Charities.  The ruling follows a decision by Illinois Department of Children and Family Services to no longer accept Catholic Charities’ contracts for foster care and adoption services because of the agency’s refusal to place children with unmarried or same-sex co

Judge Schmidt found that since Catholic Charities are not “required” by the state to perform the services, they have no “legally recognized property right to renew their contracts.”  Catholic Charities lawyer Tom Brejcha argues that the judge ignored the real issue, religious liberty.  Brecha stated that “The exercise of religion cannot be substantially burdened.  That alone could carry the case for Catholic Charities.  A lot of these people involved feel they are compelled by their faith.  The burden is pretty substantial.”

After the ruling, Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria stated that he was “simply astonished” that Illinois was unwilling to grant the same type of religious accommodations that New York and Rhode Island had after establishing civil unions.  He said “Important elements of the political establishment in the State of Illinois are now basically at war with the Catholic community and seem to be destroying their institutions.”

The civil union law, ironically named “The Religious Freedom Protection Act and Civil Union Act,” was intended to protect the rights of social service organizations, including adoption agencies, to carry out their duties according to their faith.  Immediately after its passage, though, activists began challenging the ability of religious childcare agencies to prohibit the placement of children with same-sex couples.  A subsequent religious exemption amendment to protect the rights of these agencies was defeated in the Senate Executive Committee.

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Biden Gaffe: Condones Policy of Atrocities Against Women

Biden Gaffe: Condones Policy of Atrocities Against Women

Lake County Group Urges Support of House Bill HR 2121 in Response

  Speaking before an audience in Chengdu, China on Sunday, August 21, Joe Biden said he “fully understands” China’s One-child Policy and would “not second guess” it.  Biden’s comments produced an immediate firestorm of criticism from other elected officials, women’s rights advocates, and pro-life groups, because the policy is widely considered one of the greatest human rights abuses in modern times.  Biden spoke about the policy’s drawbacks only in demographic terms, comparing it to the US problem of too few younger workers to provide a safety net for retirees.

Instituted by the Chinese government in 1979 to deal with population growth, the policy has been widely condemned.  Punishments include forced abortions and sterilizations, fines, and beatings.  Both violators and those who help them are sent to prison and forced labor camps.

Reggie Littlejohn of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers (WRWF) states that “Chinese women are literally dragged out of their homes, strapped to tables and forced to abort.”  She adds that the policy promotes gendercide—since the 400 million “prevented” births are mostly girls, “this gendercide gives rise to human trafficking and sexual slavery.”

Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) notes that “The uncontested facts are these:  Any Chinese, Tibetan, or Uyghur mother without a birth permit is put under coercive pressure to abort—if need be, she is physically forced to do so.  All unwed moms are compelled to abort.  In what can only be described as a search and destroy mission, disabled children are aborted as part of a nationwide eugenics program.”

On Wednesday a Biden spokeswoman backpedaled from the Vice President’s comments, saying that the Obama Administration strongly opposes China’s policy and believes it is “repugnant.”  However, this damage control is belied by previous administration actions.  In January, President Barack Obama did not raise the issue during a visit from Chinese President Hu Jintao. 

In 2001, funding was cut off to the United Nations Family Planning Fund (UNFPA) following an investigation headed by then Secretary of State Colin Powell.  Powell found that UNFPA was complicit in China’s forced implementation of the One Child Policy.  Despite the State Department reaffirming these findings in 2008, one of President Obama’s first actions in office was to restore the funding.  Since then, $105 million in taxpayer funds have been allocated for UNFPA, and the Obama Administration has requested another $47 million for 2012.  While a Senator, Vice President Biden consistently voted in favor of this funding.

Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) stated that “Since 1979, brothers and sisters have been illegal in China as part of the barbaric one child per couple policy.  And for 30 years, the UNFPA has vigorously supported, funded, defended, promoted, even celebrated these massive crimes against humanity. 

Reggie Littlejohn notes that “Actions speak louder than words.  If the Obama administration ‘strongly opposes’ forced abortion in China, then why did they restore funding to UNFPA?  This is not strong opposition.  It is support.” 

Rep. Renee Ellmers of North Carolina is set to introduce legislation to cut funding to UNFPA, saving $400 million over ten years.

Opponents of forced abortion under China’s one-child policy, including Lake County Right to Life, are also urging support for House Bill HR2121, introduced on June 3, 2011.  The China Democracy Promotion Act of 2011 would enable the President to deny entry into the US for Chinese government officials who have “committed human rights abuses,” including participation China’s coercive birth limitation policy. 

“Decades ago, Congress barred foreign persecutors from obtaining asylum in the United States, to keep out former Nazi war criminals,” said Littlejohn.   However, she expressed concern that even if the bill passed, President Obama might not enforce it.

# # #

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Planet of the Apes Comes True - Bioethics Where's Your Ethics?

I loved Planet of the Apes. I loved Charlton Heston who played the lead role of the poor hapless human astronaut who finds himself ship wrecked on what he at first believes to be an alien planet, where Apes rule over the humans. In the end he tragically discovers, he is back home on his own planet earth, which has suffered an atomic destruction, leaving apes to take over, and subjugate the remaining humans who were unfortunate enough to survive the atomic decimation.

The unfortunate human survivors have no idea that their ancestors were once the ruling species of the planet, wherein their ape rulers had been mere animals. How had their world turned upside down? This was the plot of the movie, leading Charlton Heston's character to struggle to find the truth.

Fast forward to 2011, Planet of the Apes is re-visited in a new movie, where the leading character, a descendent of Charlton Heston's character, has a father suffering from Alzheimer's. He works for a pharmaceutical company, that is experimenting with drugs, that can reverse the effects of brain damage. The experiments are being performed on our old friends, the apes. These experiments result in the apes suddenly taking on extremely enhanced intelligence. However, in spite of the enhanced intelligence, the apes retain their brute instincts. All of this leads the scientist, in his desire to cure his father's Alzheimer's, to violate medical ethics. He begins to experiment on his father, with the unapproved drug, which is still in the testing state with the apes. This leads to disaster.

We are beginning to see many sci-fi movies revolving around the plot of "Transhumanism", in which human DNA is being combined with animal DNA. These movies are no mere science fiction. These scientific experiments with splicing of human and animal DNA have already been accomplished in bioethics labs across the globe. Transhumanism is already here.     

What is transhumanism? In brief, it benignly began with the new technologies of prosthetics and implants, (innocent enough) but then led to cognitive enhancing drugs, genetic engineering, or neuro-implants to total artificial intelligence and augmented realities. Transhumanists boast that the newly engineered humans will enjoy a projected life-span of over 120 years with these new controversial technologies. But will it truly be human life .. or a sci-fi interpretation of humanity?

My fear is that we are immersed in a culture of death. Movies are made for entertainment, however, they can also carry an agenda .. which today they do. The movie justified the young scientist's breach of medical ethics, with his benign intentions to cure his father's suffering. These movies are coming fast and furious now, exposing society to what is actually going on in laboratories. The dilemma is ... to what end will science go in the search to eliminate suffering?  The idea that the end justifies the means is being more and more engrained in our society ... using the tool of the entertainment industry.  

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Pete With No Re-Pete - Reducing Twins

When I was a little girl of only 4 yrs. old, one of the cutest Christmas gifts I ever received were twin baby dolls. The names of Pete and Re-Pete were boldly printed on the top of the box, in which two adorable baby boy dolls were packaged. This was my first introduction to twins; and at 4 yrs. of age, I was fascinated, and at the same time elated, because now there was one extra dolly for my little brother to be able to play house with me.

Sadly today, Re-Pete is being eliminated, as more and more women carrying twins are opting to "reduce" to a "singleton"; the term used when reducing twins to a single fetus. This is done at approximately 12 weeks of a pregnancy, by injecting a fatal dose of potassium chloride into the fetal chest of one of the twins. The dead fetus then shrivels, and remains in the womb over the continuing duration of the pregnancy, until it is eventually delivered along with it's live twin. To make matters worse, the procedure is done via ultrasound, giving full view of the chosen baby's demise.

Although there is no particular agency which is keeping track of the number of twin reductions, those who offer this procedure report, that demand for reduction of twins to a "singleton" are rising. One of the largest providers of this procedure, Mount Sinai Medical Center in new York, reported that in 1997, there were 15 percent twin reductions. But last year, that number had increased to 61 percent!

The majority of those choosing to abort one of twin fetuses in a pregnancy, are many times women who are middle aged, and have become pregnant through IVF and fertility drugs. Many doctors who perform reductions of triplets or more, believing this will ensure the health of mother and baby, are nevertheless reluctant to reduce twins. They argue that though twin pregnancies can carry more risks than a single fetus pregnancy, nevertheless, most twins (especially fraternal) do just fine. Dr. Richard Berkowitz, a perinatologist at Columbia University Medical Center; one of the earliest practitioners of pregnancy reduction argues: "The overwhelming majority of women carrying twins are going to be able to deliver two healthy babies." Yet, he capitulates by stating: "In a society where women can terminate a single pregnancy for any reason -- financial, social, emotional --- if we have a way to reduce a twin pregnancy with very little risk, isn't it legitimate to offer that service to women with twins who want to reduce to a singleton?"

There you have it ... the ultimate progression of "choice". If a woman has the legal right to kill her unborn child for any reason, what's to stop her from choosing one child over another? Choice has now taken on mammoth proportions! Our free will, which has endowed us with the ability to "choose" between good and evil, has been perverted with today's new interpretation of "choice". Today's "choice" is all about satisfying personal wants, without discerning whether or not those choices are good or evil. It's not about whether it's good or bad anymore .. it's only about whether I want it or not.

Babies with Down syndrome and other anomalies are being aborted more and more today, as parents believe a handicapped child is a burden, not only to themselves, but to the child itself. But twins? Parents today are fretting over studies which report enormous disruptions in families with multiples. The studies report a higher level of social isolation, exhaustion and depression in mothers of twins. Women who opted to reduce from twins to a singleton, feared the demands of two babies over one ... especially if there were other children already in the home. They believed they were doing themselves and their child or children, a favor.

In my grandparents time, people expected life to be difficult and challenging; yet not insurmountable. I myself, though I never had twins, had 5 babies ... four of whom were so close in age, they may as well have been quadruplets. Yes, the demands of having 3 children in diapers at one time, while pregnant and nauseous with a 4th, seemed overwhelming at first. But, as a young mother, I soon learned that it was only a matter of time before I was handling all the demands of diapering, feeding and caring for all of my children like a pro. In short, I became "super mom" ... and I loved it! And none of my children felt left out. Nature and God always seemed to provide. and I discovered inner strengths and talents I never knew I had.

Not only did I become wonderfully adept at handling 4 children under the age of 4, but children who have multiple siblings are actually easier to care for, since they all have companions to amuse and keep them occupied. I have always noticed that parents with only one child have much more problems than I ever had with 5 children. One of the biggest of those problems, which I noticed my single child friends to be experiencing, was the issue with a single child sleeping with their parents for quite a few years, because they were afraid of sleeping alone. I never had that problem, as my kids all had siblings to keep them company in the dark. As a result, my husband and I never had our marital bed interrupted, save for a couple of very rare occasions when there was a sick child.

Talk about surprises ... when my 4th child was 10 years old, and my oldest was 14, I discovered I was pregnant at 40 years of age. My initial feelings were that of being overwhelmed all over again. How will I handle this, I thought to myself. I'm starting all over again. But along came number 5, and I barely had to worry. Her four older siblings took over, as if it had all been rehearsed. She never even slept in the new crib we bought for her, as her older siblings would take her into their beds. She was their pet. Once again, things seemed to just fall into place, and all my worries proved to be unfounded. Instead of an extra burden, there was an extra blessing. Once the older four children left for college and marriage, my husband and I still had another little voice to fill the house. And soon, little number 5 was not alone either, as her older siblings began having little nieces and nephews for her to love.

Why choose to kill one child, out of fear that we will not be able to handle it?

My main point here is this. We have become, not only a selfish society, but a wimp society. We are so afraid of any challenges or demands being made upon us, that we think we have to control everything ... whether or not to have a child ... or how many children to have ... it's all such nonsense ... that neurotic feeling that we have to be "in control" of everything. Why does everyone want to have such a "scripted" life? I don't get it. What ever happened to pleasant surprises ... or taking things as they come? What is so awful about that? Why does everyone want to micro-manage everything so much? How dull.

I believe that all of these questions make a huge difference between people who have a faith in God, and people who do not. This does not mean that those of us who have a faith in God, sit on our buts and do nothing to alleviate the world's suffering, or that we leave all caution to the wind. It simply means, we know that we are not in control of everything; and that there are limits to what man can; or more importantly, should do. We know, that regardless of what modern science may be capable of, there is still much that is God's domain, and not ours.

We are not the Creator. As a Catholic, I was taught that man is a co-creator with God. We do not create life on our own .. rather we procreate .. that is, we cooperate with the Creator Himself to bring new life into being. We engage in the creative act, simply by God's permission. But we are not the ones who called the universe into existence. We are not the ones who infuse a soul into physical matter. Fertility treatments and attempting to control how many babies one has, and or how perfect those children are, is creating a world where, in attempting to take on god-like powers and authority, we are becoming monsters ... killers ... manipulators of God's divine gift of life, which belongs to Him and Him alone.

To all those women out there, who fear they cannot handle twins ... there was a time, when I was up to my ears in diapers and breast-feeding infants, and chasing toddlers. But, as hectic as it was, there were many joys, that I would not have traded for all the convenience in the world. And it was all over way too soon. Way too quickly, those little ones were out of my door, and now I have a lot more time on my hands. Time to write this blog. Time to recollect and remember, when my walls had multiple finger prints, and I was tired more often than not. When I could not afford that new dress, because I had to put that money toward my children's education; and the many times my husband and I had to choose between paying this bill or that bill. Now I have 13 grandchildren. Some live close by ... others are far away, and I am not able to see them all that often. All the fears and anxieties of my youth are far behind me, and I look back and marvel at the things I got through, even though they seemed so insurmountable at the time. Life goes by very quickly, and we look back one day and wonder what we were so worried about.

Back to Pete and Re-Pete ... twins may be double work .. but they are also double joy. And we are always pleasantly surprised at what we are able to handle, when we let life happen ... and not try so much to control it. Give little Re-Pete a chance.

Biggest blow to date for ObamaCare

Judges call Obama Administration’s Arguments “Convenient Sleight of Hand”

Biggest blow to date for ObamaCare

  On Friday, August 12, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta ruled that the new national health care law is unconstitutional for forcing US citizens to purchase health insurance.  The Court upheld the January ruling of Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida, which stated that it’s unconstitutional to require people to purchase health insuranc

Twenty-six attorneys general originally filed the Florida suit, alleging that the individual mandate violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.  The Commerce Clause states that the federal government can regulate commerce between the states.  In January; the court ruled that if individuals choose not to buy health insurance, they are not engaging in interstate commerce and therefore are not covered by the clause.  Judge Vinson wrote at that time that if Congress “has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction” there is no practical limit on Congress’ power.

In last Friday’s 2-1 decision, the Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the individual mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, although the rest of the law could stand.  With this decision, Judge Frank Hull, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, became the first Democrat-appointed judge to rule against the law.

The judges called the Obama administration’s arguments a “convenient sleight of hand,” obscuring what the law truly does.  In reality, they concluded, it forces healthy people to buy “fully loaded” health plans in order to subsidize insurance companies.  The judges wrote that in imposing the mandate “Congress sought to mitigate” the costs of popular reforms like covering pre-existing conditions and removing lifetime caps on payouts “by compelling healthy Americans outside the insurance market to enter the private insurance market and buy insurer’s products.

The opinion stated that “This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority:  the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives.”  They also said that “The government’s position amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence substantially affects interstate commerce, and therefore Congress may regulate them at every point of their life.”

The federal government will now have 90 days to appeal to the Supreme Court or to ask the full appeals court to review the case.

# # #

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

More on Transhumanism and Darwin's Ape - Part II

A recent movie titled, "Splice" tells the story of two scientists who attempt to splice the DNA of humans and animals, culminating in a new being which is transhuman - half human, half animal. Neither of the two scientists have any knowledge what this new entity will really become, and since they created it clandestinely, must hide it from the view of others - first in a back room lab, eventually to an old barn out in the woods.

In the beginning, the creature is cute and adorable, resembling a little female human, although possessing a tail, along with certain other little animal characteristics. It's endearing qualities, in the beginning, evoke the maternal instincts of the female scientist. But, as it quickly reaches adulthood, it's sexual allure begins to attract the male scientist. This begins to unfold some very serious problems with this new transhuman creature, which culminate in disaster for it's creators.

Human babies begin much the same as animals, in that they are only able to act on their instincts to be nurtured in order to survive. They care less that they are waking their parents in the middle of the night, to obtain their needs. But as human children grow and develop, a higher intellect begins to unfold, with the child taking on the ability to empathize with others, and choose between right and wrong. The human child begins to transform from a self seeking little animal, to a being which can now give as well as take, and begin to learn and consider the effects of it's actions and choices. In human beings, the age of 7 yrs. has always been considered the "age of reason", at which point these abilities begin to manifest themselves in the human child.

Unfortunately, as the spliced entity of this movie begins to mature into it's adult stage, it shows no signs of attaining any of the higher attributes of it's human DNA. Instead, it remains a huge infantile creature, which merely seeks it's own gratification, backed by certain animal strengths, which now make it very dangerous to it's human creators. This, added to the creature's inability to distinguish between right and wrong, lead to violent consequences.

Mere science fiction you say? At this very moment, scientists are already splicing human DNA with animals and attempting to clone new hybrid creatures in the new frontier of "transhumanism". Apparently the scientists have no more ability to discern between right and wrong, and consider the consequences of their actions, anymore than the creature in the movie "Splice".

The movie may seem to be mere conjecture, on the part of the entertainment industry, in it's depiction of the consequences of "transhumanism"; yet, it would certainly seem that even the entertainment industry is considering these consequences, much more than the scientific community itself. Pride and the lust for power over our natural world, have left scientists failing to consider the consequences of their actions, as any 7 years old child is able to do. The movie seeks to question the ramifications of such scientific actions as splicing and cloning, which the scientific community itself prefers to ignore, in it's quest for power.

What will be the effects of such failure of consideration on the part of the scientific community? Are movies such as "Splice" and other such sci-fi entertainment all that far from the truth? Do we really want to find out?

The movie “Planet of the Apes” told the story of an apocalyptic world turned upside down, in which apes had become the rulers over human beings. Charles Darwin theorized that we originally evolved from the ape. Will we now be evolving back to Darwin’s ape? And will that new ape be more human than animal, or the other way around?

Monday, August 8, 2011

Parents Beware

A Warning to Local Parents About School-Based Clinics

School-based clinics (SBCs) provide many medical services, such as basic physicals for low-income students.  However, they have always been surrounded by controversy.  This is because the primary reason SBCs exist is to provide reproductive health care.  This includes birth control, abortion pills and abortion referrals.  The objective of SBCs is to make contraceptives and abortion available to all teenagers, regardless of their religious or cultural beliefs.  The reason school-based clinics offer a number of other services is to obscure their real purpose.   

Since Illinois has no parental consent law, what has happened at SBCs in other states could happen here.  For instance, one Washington State mom was horrified to discover that the school had put her daughter in a cab and sent her offsite to get an abortion—without the mother’s knowledge or consent.  Even if SBC proponents emphasize that abortion referrals will not be done by the clinic, this restriction is easily overcome by referring girls to agencies that do not themselves do abortions, but which immediately give a second referral to one that does.

SBCs typically write parental consent forms in such a way that any forms not returned to the clinic are automatically interpreted as parental notification and consent.  Also, these forms are usually not itemized, meaning that parents who want their children to receive a sports physical may be giving permission for any other service (such as birth control pills) without parental knowledge or consent.  Most school-based clinic proponents use how-to instruction manuals issued by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS).  Founded by the former medical director of Planned Parenthood, SIECUS is at the forefront of a national legislative strategy to eliminate federal funding for abstinence programs, calling them “harmful.”

The first step in pushing for a local SBC is to create an impression of need by claiming that interviews and focus groups reveal unanimous agreement about it.  But what advocates don’t tell you is that the only people they confer with are ones already known to agree with them.  Advocates make connections with public officials and community groups—but they don’t reveal to the public that their blue ribbon committee is deliberately packed with clinic supporters.  Activists ignore conservative and pro-family groups.  They claim widespread support by parents, but only parents who agree with them are included in the focus groups.

If opposition surfaces against birth control and abortions, the activists’ strategy is to install the clinic without them and then add these features after the clinic is established and the controversy dies down.

Lake Country Right to Life urges all local parents to be alert about the stealthy tactics and motives surrounding school-based health centers. Round Lake School District 116 has approved starting the planning process for a school based clinic, that initially would target older students.

Friday, August 5, 2011

Mother Nature Never Forgives or Forgets. Don't Fool With Her. Part I

The government cares so much about women, that they are now covering birth control pills and abortifacients, with no co-pays!  For those who do not know what an abortifacient is, here is the explanation. An abortifacient is any contraceptive or morning after drug, which does not prevent conception, but instead renders the womb inhabitable for the newly conceived human.  The common misconception about birth control pills, is that they prevent ovulation. They don't.

The latest studies show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that hormonal pills of any kind can lead to injuries and death.  There's an old adage about forgiveness: If confessed, you're priest will absolve you, your parents will forgive you, your friends will get over it, but mother nature never forgives or forgets. Hence the modern day mantra, "don't fool with Mother Nature".   It is no mere coincidence, that it is called "Mother" nature, as opposed to Father Nature. Women are the bearers of life. Our bodies are a hormonal wonder designed by nature to create and nurture life. We are hormonal from the get go. So, when we fool with Mother Nature ... ie ... our hormonal balance with all birth control pills which manipulate our hormones, our bodies react with negative consequences. The old adage, "you can't fool with Mother Nature" has come home to roost with a vengeance.

Let's have a look at some of the consequences of "fooling with Mother Nature". Close to 50% of all newly acquired HIV-1 infections across the globe, now occur in women of reproductive age. Why? Heavily funded population control programs have promoted, and even imposed, powerful steroid based contraceptive drugs on tens of millions of Third World women. What was touted as family planning methods, has given the HIV virus greater access to women's bodies, by altering women's local and systemic immunities. Statistics gathered over the past 20 years, reveal a parallel between an increase in contraceptive drug use, and an increase in HIV-1 infections in women.

There is a strong link between all contraceptives and breast cancer - hormones once again! Birth control pills are made from synthetic estrogen and or progesterone. These hormones cause women's breast cells to divide rapidly. Cells that divide more rapidly are more prone to develop into cancer. One only has to wonder, why the rapid increase in breast cancer which our society has been experiencing. Younger and younger women are being diagnosed with breast cancer.

Here comes another hooker from Mother Nature. Cervical Cancer has been linked to birth control use. Of course, we have a massive dangerous vaccine campaign to try and eliminate cervical cancer. Kind of like the dog chasing it's tail. RU486 has left a trail of maimed and dead women. However that drug will come to you free of charge - compliments of Obama Care. Do you think this administration really has women's best interests at heart? Who will cover the medical costs from the dangerous effects of these drugs, which fool with Mother Nature? Who will heal broken hearts, broken families and broken women? 

Want more? How about Plan B? Forty times the hormonal strength of the average birth control pill! The government is opposed to the soft drink called "Jolt", because of the high doses of caffeine, being dangerous. I guess the dangers of caffeine trumps the dangers of hormones to women. Who cares if  women are "jolted" with 40 x's the hormones in the Plan B pill? I wonder what Plan A was?

I think Mother Nature abhors the Obama Administration. And if and when women get smart, they will too.