Friday, September 30, 2011
Thursday, September 29, 2011
The hospital in Canada originally planned to remove life support from the baby, over the objection of his parents. The hospital asked the Office of the Public Guardian to assume decision making power over his parents. This caused the case to become a highly publicized international debate over parents rights and the euthanasia issue. The debate culminated in Father Pavone, the Euthanasia Coalition and the Terri Schaivo Life and Hope Network, came to the support of the parents. This led to Baby Joseph being brought to the Cardinal Glennon's Children's Medical Center in St. Louis, Missouri, where the value of his little life was recognized and the tracheostomy was performed.
The debate centered around two issues. (1.) No hospital should be able to impose an end of life sustaining treatment, based on financial concerns, or a subjective quality of life. (2.) Was the issue of the tracheostomy, which was the procedure the family wanted in order to take their baby home to die. The hospital said, that would impose a burden on the parents, and in their best medical judgement, they refused. The question was, "what was the burden"? If it was the baby; then the treatment was being withheld because it was the baby that was the burden.
Keep in mind, that Gabriella Gifford, the Arizona Congresswoman who was shot in the head, received a tracheotomy almost immediately. Tracheotomys are routinely performed for many reasons, but for long-term ventilatory support, they are done for comfort. This is standard procedure in hospitals. It is not extraordinary care.
The parents won their battle to take their little boy home with them to die, and on Tuesday, September 27th, little Baby Joseph died in the loving arms of his mommy and daddy, rather than simply having his plug pulled in a cold clinical environment. He was called home by God, not sent to his death by human elitist ideologies, which devalue human life to their utopian idea of what "quality of life" means. This utopian idea of "quality of life" trumps the "sanctity of life"; and those who consider themselves better qualified, which in Baby Joseph's case was the hospital medical staff, want to call the shots.
Now, we can all ask ourselves the question, "who was Baby Joseph and why should we celebrate his life?" The simple answer is that Baby Joseph is all of us. Remember, Canada has national health care, and this is what we all be facing if the Affordable Patient Care Act is not repealed in total.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
And so on and so on it goes, since pre-natal testing and legal abortion have combined around the world to create the new legal action of "wrongful birth" lawsuits. In such cases, a doctor or hospital may be sued by parents for failing to warn them that their child will be disabled, or failing to recommend abortion. The damages are purported to be for the child's medical bills and psychological counseling for it's parents. There are also "wrongful life" suits in which a child, or it's representative can sue the doctor for lifelong support.
Lynda Bell of Florida Right to Life commented, "How bizarre that in our nation, not only have we become a throw-away generation, including our babies that are not perfect, but that now we're holding doctors responsible to deliver a perfect baby." She went on to state, "Doctors may feel that they have a responsibility to lead people to abortion just so there's not a lawsuit." Part of another of her statement's reads, "I think there's a very fine line between a negligent physician and having him being responsible for an unborn child, whether or not it is perfect." "Doctors are not god," she said, "they're physicians."
And what of the children for whom these lawsuits were awarded? What will they think when they grow up? Ana Mejia testified that she would have had her son killed in her womb, by abortion, had she been told that he had no arms and only one leg. Her son Bryan is not mentally incapacitated, so one day he will be able to fully comprehend that the money awarded his parents, was compensation for not being able to abort him before he was born. I wonder how that will make him feel?
If ... according to the courts ... doctors are responsible for "wrongful births", then how many of the rest of us might have been able to sue our doctors for some physical deficit we feel we may have been born with? How many of the rest of us who do not meet today's standards of perfection, should have been born? Ask yourself ... if by today's standards you would have made the cut?
Nick Vujicic was born in Brisbane, Australia in 1982 with no arms and no legs. He went on to earn a double Bachelor's degree in Accounting and Financial Planning, and is a world renowned motivational speaker. In his new autobiography, "Life without Limits", Nick tells his story of struggling with bullying, thoughts of suicide, and the unique situation of facing life without arms or legs. His inspiring story, tells of how he rose above these circumstances, and even accomplished more without limbs, than he could have with them. He has been an inspiration to millions of people of what it means to value human life in all forms.
But then when you consider, that even a perfectly healthy child in the womb can be exterminated by the choice of it's own mother, it's just a short walk around the corner to exterminating the so called "imperfect" child in the womb ... and demanding that a doctor facilitate that option.
I recently had to have a mother-daughter talk with my 23 yrs old daughter, who was experiencing the hardship of female jealousy. Because she was born with physical beauty, she has been having to learn how to navigate this mine field of female jealousy. I had to explain to her, how none of us chooses how we are physically made. And how many times, those girls who are not born with the comely features such as girls who are prettier than them, can many times suffer extreme insecurities, which then cause them to resent another who seems to enjoy that which they feel they have been denied. And even pretty girls can feel insecure. Do the parents of these disabled children have insecurities? We look at others many times, and project our own insecurities on them. And parents who would rather abort a handicapped child, than give it life, are simply projecting their own insecurities on their child. A child, who, in spite of his or her handicap, may very well grow up to be as accomplished as any other child, and have a much better sense of him or herself than many others.
How do we look at ourselves and others? Do we measure ourselves and others, with the measuring stick of perfection? If we can write off someone else as imperfect, including our own child, who may write us off one day?
According to a study, which appeared in the journal of Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, hormonal contraceptives (birth control pills, patches & rings) alter women's memory. Women who use contraceptives like birth control pills, experience memory changes. Their ability to remember the gist of an emotional event improves, while women not using the contraceptives better retain the details of the event.
The UCI researcher said, "What's most exciting about this study, is that it shows that the use of hormonal contraception alters memories." More than 100 million women use contraceptives worldwide. Researcher Shawn Nielsen stressed, that the medication did not damage memory. "It's a change in the type of information they remember, not a deficit." Remember, hormones were previously linked to women's strong left-brain memory. Estrogens and progesterones are linked to women's strong left-brain memory, that helps them remember things better than men, who encode memory with the help of right-brain memory. Since birth control pills control and lower the levels of the female reproductive hormones to prevent pregnancy in women, researchers are convinced that contraceptive pills can make women's memory similar to mens'. That's scary. Now both of them will forget their marriage anniversary dates.
Women who use hormonal contraceptives "recall" emotional events differently. In our modern world, with school based clinics, and the HHS authorizing free contraception under the National Health Care Plan, some red flags are raised; because the finding that contraceptives change the type of information a woman recalls should be of vital interest to female students, who need to remember details. In particular, they may do less well in situations requiring memorization.
Wasn't there an old saying, "The Devil's in the Details". This idiom, is derived from the earlier phrase, "God is in the details", which expressed the idea that whatever one does, it should be done thoroughly, as details are important. The slight switch in this idiom, from God to Devil, refers to a catch or mysterious element "hidden" in the details; which if overlooked in any plans or schemes, can cause serious problems later on down the line. So, now that neither men or women are able to remember the details, the Devil has no opposition.
Whatever happened to the compliment that God intended between the sexes. Now they are certainly both equal when it comes to their ability to "recall", or should we say "forget", as well as their sexual license. One has to ask if the original inventors of the pill, realized this "detail"? Was it intentional, or a consequence? Was this devil in the details just ignored in their quest for sexual license? Or was there another agenda?
Monday, September 19, 2011
- All new insurance plans must cover all contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs, such as Ella, Plan B and RU486.
- Individuals and insurers who find these morally objectionable will be forced to pay for them.
- Conscience protections promised by President Obama’s Executive Order and current conscience laws have been ignored.
- The religious exemption is so narrow that it will exclude most religious health care providers; for example, Catholic hospitals will only qualify if they stop hiring and serving non-Catholics.
Monday, September 12, 2011
My blog today is going to cover a pro-life issue, from a slightly different perspective. Reading the book, which Terri Schiavo’s family wrote about her, “A Life That Matters”, I definitely have a few thoughts to share with you today, that you might find of interest.
Apparently, when Terri was a child and on into her teen years, she had a bit of a weight problem. She was not always the svelte image we have seen in the pics of her in her later years. Apparently, her weight problem kept her out of a lot of social activities throughout her school years, and though she did not have a complex, she nevertheless shunned the spotlight, only hanging out with close friends and family, or keeping to her room.
Once she had decided to lose the weight, under a doctor’s supervision, she became the physical vision of loveliness which ultimately attracted her husband Michael Schiavo. Of course, her parents and family, all knew that she had always been a lovely girl from within, as well as without; long before her physical transformation. Still, let’s face it; physical beauty always has a lot more ability to attract the opposite sex, than the lack of it. But what does it really attract?
We continually hear the stories of the poor little “Plain Janes”, who sit at home on a Friday or Saturday night, without a date; while the girls with all the looks have all the fun and opportunities for love and marriage. For such pretty girls, it is always assumed that the world is their oyster. Looks are the ticket to having all your dreams come true. Right?
Terri Schiavo might disagree with you. She could tell you, that her transformation from overweight out of the limelight girl, to femme fatale, did not make all her dreams come true, and long before she became a disabled person, her marriage, fraught with trouble, was on the rocks.
Had Terri not made the effort to diet in order to reveal a stunning physical beauty, would Michael Schiavo have ever noticed her - and would her life have taken a different turn? Am I saying she should have stayed overweight? Of course not! Am I making a case against physical beauty? Not at all! I’m simply pointing out, that physical looks are no more a guarantee of happiness and love, than their lack. And I can assure you, that more times than not, they only lead to a greater disappointment, in many women, who think they’ve found their Prince Charming.
Who had Michael loved? What had he loved? Had he only loved a pretty face & figure? Once she was disabled, Terri’s family could still see the beautiful girl they loved! They state in their book, that “their love and commitment to their daughter never changed, after her disability.” She was still the same Terri to them. Why hadn’t she remained the same to Michael, her husband? So you might say, my blog today is combining marital advice along with the pro-life argument … because in my opinion, it’s all connected. For how can we value a person’s life, if we don’t know how to really love? And to know you is to love you; an old saying goes. The abortion advocates don’t want ultrasound bills passed, so that the women seeking an abortion will not see and ultimately “know” and possibly "love" for their child.
So, how well do you young people out there today think you really know the person you want to marry, or they you? If a woman can so easily discount her unborn child, because she does not really know or love it, how easy is it to be discounted by a spouse or partner, if they have failed to really know the “real” you - if they have only fallen in love with an image – a surface? Terri Schiavo paid the ultimate price for not being truly loved by her husband, for who she truly was, not just what she looked like.
All the physical beauty in the world cannot garner this kind of assurance of love. Two people need to really get to know one another before they even begin using the term “love”; for it is a word that is all too easily bantered about today. And my advice to young women especially, is to try and find that young man who comments on things about your personality and character, more so than your figure. Take the time to really get to know him also. Don’t just let yourself be swept away by emotion. Love and marriage are not what today’s secular world would have you believe. Ask yourself some tough questions. If that handsome young fellow you are so enchanted with, and who makes your heart go pitter pat, ever ends up disabled in any way, would you still love him, and stand by him? Do you have the kind of love for him that would see the two of you through anything? Perhaps many of you will quickly answer yes to this question. For when we are in the first flush of love, we often feel that “our love” is a love that will live forever and overcome all odds. I’m sure Terri and Michael Schiavo felt the same way in the beginning of their relationship. So what happened?
The diagnosis of persistent vegetative state (PVS) was invented by proponents of euthanasia within the medical industry to dehumanize the severely brain-injured, making it easier to kill them; much the same way that the child in the womb is written off by such terms as fetus, blob of tissue, pregnancy product, etc. This is linguistic gymnastics, which is being used the same today, as in World War II, Nazi Germany, to eliminate those deemed imperfect or undesirable. Terri Schiavo had become imperfect and undesirable to her husband Michael; so he eliminated her. Whatever love he believed he had felt for her, when she was physically whole, had dried up in the face of her disability.
Now, unless this comes off sounding too judgmental of people with brain damaged spouses, let me say that I’m sure we can all sympathize with a person who is married to an invalid. Michael and Terri were still very young when she collapsed and ended up disabled. One can certainly understand the fear and loneliness he must have felt at the years that lay ahead of him, married to a disabled wife, when he himself was still young. It would certainly be a tough road. It would be a lonely road in many ways; his spouse no longer being able to accompany him through life, in the same way she had when she was physically whole and healthy. Certainly most of us don’t choose to start out by marrying someone who is severely handicapped, except maybe in rare cases. We can all honestly look at ourselves and admit that the prospect of being married to a semi-comatose person, for the rest of our lives, when we are still young, is a frightening prospect. And it’s a sobering thought when considering marriage.
This is really what Terri and Michael’s story is all about. All this euthanasia tripe about the “right to die” is a lot of hooey! It all simply boils down to the fact, that there was a young man, who was facing the prospect of the rest of his life, being tied to a handicapped woman. And the euthanasia proponents, lawyers and judges, and others, took full advantage of his fears and weakness. They offered Michael a way out – one where he would have to feel no guilt about snuffing out his wife’s life - so he could move on with his own. He would be doing her a favor, they probably told him. All he’d have to do is say “she wanted it that way” – that it was “her wish”, not to have to live in a disabled body. This is not to whitewash Michael’s actions either. They are despicable! I am simply saying that, who knows what other road Michael might have ultimately taken, had the devil, dressed up in lawyer’s clothing, not appeared to give him an easy way out? Much the same way the abortion proponents of today, offer frightened and pregnant women a way out. The euthanasia proponents used Michael and Terri’s unfortunate situation, to further their own agenda. Michael’s love for Terri, was not strong enough to see her through “sickness and health”. Ok, many people’s love is not strong enough for this. So do we take advantage of their weakness, by killing off their spouses, in order to create a world wherein only the perfect are welcomed and loved? The book that Terri’s family wrote about their daughter does not put her husband Michael in a very good light; and rightfully so. But we must all honestly ask ourselves, what would we do - or what might we do, if we ever find ourselves in similar circumstances?
All these things need to be considered before we claim to love someone, and that we want to spend the rest of our lives with them. There are many noble stories of loving married couples, who stayed together after one of them was seriously injured and disabled – the case of the actor Christopher Reeve and his wife for one. And I know there are many others out there who are able to love their spouse to a heroic degree through any and all trials.
This is what all young couples must consider before they take that walk down the aisle, or make that impassioned statement of love to another. Be honest with ourselves, and ask, if we are able to love another to a heroic degree. Or will we fail, in the face of adversity or calamity?
A human being can never be a vegetable! Michael did not marry a human being, who suddenly turned into a turnip! That’s preposterous! The term vegetable does not apply to humans, in any kind of way. It is simply a clever play on words, to justify eliminating someone who puts our love to the test. So, before you marry someone, consider that they will be the same person who stands next to you on your wedding day, no matter what physical, mental or other changes they may go through. They will not become an artichoke!
Friday, September 9, 2011
Today, Assembly Bill 499, however, is on the desk of Governor Jerry Brown in California for his final signature, after already being passed by both houses of the California State Legislature! This bill would effectively strip informed consent from parents in order to allow secret vaccinations of children as young as 12, with vaccines such as Gardasil and Hepatitis B, as well as all future vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases.
So, do I have this right? The government will not allow you to buy raw milk from some subversive Amish farmer, yet it will now take full control of your child's immunizations, with or without your knowledge or consent. How's that for a "STING" operation?
Where are our freedoms, which for so long, we believed we had? Wake up America! We are no longer living in a Free society. We are no longer living a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people". The government has become Big Daddy, deciding what you will eat and drink, and what your children will be injected with, and what they will be taught in schools.
Warning: to all you homeschool parents out there, who feel you are protecting your children from these invasive tactics of the government - they are onto you - and you will not get away with it for long. Do not think that they do not have you in their sights!
Where did AB499 emanate from in the first place? The big pharmaceutical giants such as Merck, have really been getting annoyed with all your parental objections to their heinous vaccines, and so, they quietly and stealthily, lobbied a bill through the California State Legislature, that would strip informed consent from you annoying parents for once and for all, and allow "secret" vaccinations of your children!
Of course, once the bill is passed however, the parents will still be required any legal and financial responsibilities incurred, due to any negative effects of the secret inoculations. How's that for a "sting"?
If it is not too late, by the time you are reading this, to do something about it ... Flood the phone lines to Governor Brown's office to repudiate this bill! Phone: 916-445-2841, Fax: 916-558-3160 - because no matter what your personal opinions about immunizations may be, allowing children to be "secretly" vaccinated without a parent's knowledge or consent, is clearly a violation of the moral dignity of a Free Society! Act Now!
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Now, here comes Russian Roulette. There is no test that can pick up a new HIV infection in the blood with 100% accuracy. This is because blood is often pooled, so many people may be at risk from a single infected donor. Now, enter Senator Kerry who, in June of 2010, went over the FDA and sent a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which is the parent agency of the FDA. In his tome, Senator Kerry complained that by keeping discriminatory policies on the books and denying willing donors the opportunity to help others, the ban should be lifted. Anyone reading this blog will realize why the gun is loaded. Hopefully, Homeland Security will weigh in on this.
Kerry's letter was signed by some of Illinois' "finest." I don't think that Mike Quigley (D- Chicago), or Jan Schakowsky (D-Chicago) believe the ban should be lifted because of any blood shortage, but because they want to continue their support and lobby for the homosexual agenda. These two players are also prominent in the marriage debate, both supporters of same sex marriage.
Our own Illinois Senator Durbin also signed on to Senator Kerry's letter to the HHS. This issue, like all issues, is being presented as a discriminatory policy kept on the books to deny willing donors the opportunity to help others. Does this rhetoric sound familiar? Does playing with a loaded gun sound familiar? To think that 40 members of the House and 17 members of the Senate would willing put this nation's health at GRAVE risk. Remember Arthur Ashe, the only black man ever to win the singles title at Wimbledon, the U.S. Open and the Australian Open, who contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion, as well as 10,000 hemophiliacs who died in the U.S. alone.
Pontificating Senator Kerry, in his frenzy to save humankind from a lack of blood, said, "Not a single piece of scientific evidence supports the ban. A law that was once considered medically justified is simply outdated and needs to end." Senator Kerry also notes that major professional health organizations have come down on the side of overturning the gay blood ban. Senator Kerry writes, "the three largest blood organizations in our country-the American Red Cross, America's Blood Centers and AABB (formerly the American Association of Blood Banks) - all agree calling the ban medically and scientifically unwarranted."
Illinois, especially, should be concerned. After all, we have examples of what lifting the ban might produce nationwide. Late in 2007, the media reported on a troubling case in Chicago. Four patients who received organ transplants in Chicago area hospitals contracted hepatitis and the AIDS virus from one donor who was medically identified as a person who lived "a high risk lifestyle." Later, it was confirmed that this donor's 'high risk lifestyle" was homosexual.
Physicians knew that the donor of the diseased organs had engaged in homosexual sex. However, these doctors weighed the test results and lifestyle risks against the loss of organs. The organs won and the patients lost. A lawsuit has resulted. The case revolves around the CDC guidelines which were violated twice. The first violation was not fully informing the recipient of the organ about the level of risk. The second violation was not testing the recipient for HIV. This is why the FDA reaffirmed their ban on homosexual blood donation. The ban isn't limited to homosexuals. It restricts other "high risk" categories such as prostitution and IV drug use. These restrictions are in place to minimize the risk that HIV or other infectious agents are injected or introduced into our blood supply.
The Department of HHS, in responding to Senator Kerry and Representative Quigley, identified 4 areas of study to pursue before the regulatory ban on gay men donating blood can be lifted.
This has nothing to do about health or a blood shortage, but everything to do about normalizing homosexuality. The battle continues.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Obama and Slave Trafficking
Human trafficking is modern-day slavery, where immigrants are forced into prostitution or slave labor. Since 2000, with the passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), the Department of Health and Human Services has operated anti-trafficking programs, providing them through nonprofit partner organizations. From the beginning, faith-based organizations were in the forefront of these efforts, instrumental in developing ATIP (Anti-trafficking in Persons Program) and providing a large percentage of services. Now changes in HHS grant requirements will exclude some of these very organizations from participating in the programs.
Friday, September 2, 2011
During the Rubells epidemic of 1964, some doctors began advising pregnant women, who had possibly been exposed to Rubella, more familiarly known as German Measles, to abort their babies. I myself, after giving birth to my 2nd child, in 1975, was told by my doctor, that I needed a Rubella vaccination, because I had never been immunized against the disease. After the nurse administered the vaccine, only then did my doctor inform me, that if I became pregnant within the next 3 - 4 months, I would have to abort, because my child would be infected with German Measles. He sternly warned me, that my child would be born severely disabled, blind and or deaf, if I became pregnant within the next 3 months after the inoculation. I was devastated and terrified. Long story short, I did, in fact, become pregnant within 3 months of my 2nd child's birth; the child being born completely normal, and today she has given me 3 healthy grandchildren. This was simply by the grace of God, in whom I placed my trust.
Now, today, I have just learned, what, specifically, I was inoculated with. After the Rubella epidemic of 1964, a virus strain was developed and known in the science world, as RA/27/3, where R=Rubella, A=A, 27=27th fetus tested, 3=third tissue explant. Now, that is a mouthful, so I will sum it up. Basically a vaccine was created using the tissue of aborted infants. Great! I was inoculated with aborted fetal DNA! My doctor sort of left that part out.
Would it surprise you to know that prior to the introduction of this MMR vaccine, which was produced using fetal cells, the rate of autism in the United States was 1 in 10,000? That percent has dramatically increased, coinciding with the state mandated vaccine. Another autism rise, occurred in 1995, when the chickenpox vaccine, also using aborted fetal cell lines was introduced in the US market that same year. Other countries, which introduced these aborted fetal vaccines, also showed a dramatic increase in the cases of autism.
Altogether, there are three vaccines which were produced solely from abortion and to date are: Chicken Pox - Hepatitis A - Rubella. Other abortion tainted vaccines are: Mumps - Measles - Poliovax.
The good news is, here is a list of the "UNTAINTED" vaccines being newly on the market, with phone numbers, which your doctor can call to order a single dose for you or your child. I would advise writing these numbers down, and having your doctor call before you or your child's next vaccination.
Polio Ipol or Orimune (Oral Dosage) Both are Untainted - call 1-800-822-2463
Rabies RabAvert - Untainted - call 1-800-244-7668
Mumps - MUMPSVAX - Untainted - call 1-800-422-9675
Measles - ATTENUVAX - Untainted - call 1-800-422-9675
Flu - Request your doctor to inoculate you with any of the new Flu vaccines being made by Aventis Pasteur and Wyeth Ayerest. These do not use aborted fetal tissue.
Most of the public is completely unaware of what is being injected into ourselves and our children today with vaccinations. It is our responsibility to educate ourselves and take the appropriate action to protect ourselves and our children, and the health of future generations. To start educating yourself, contact: The Campaign for Ethical Vaccines - http://www.cogforlife.org - Or you can write to -
Children of God for Life, 2130 Catalina Dr., Clearwater, Florida 33764
Or call: (7247) 538-5558 or you can call Lake County Right to Life at 847-223-7022.