A Sad Story

 

Clinic escort: woman who had 10 abortions is “empowered”

 

By Sarah Terzo

Jennifer Baumgardner

An abortion clinic escort, whose blog can be found here, wrote the following in a post on March 18:

There are times a client and/or companion is so empowered they instantly gain my admiration.

What is she so impressed by? She goes on to explain:

The companion [of the woman who was having an abortion] got out of the car first. E [the pro-lifer] was hovering right behind me ready to start shaming. I was able to explain the vests and offer to escort them before he began his spiel. E handed the companion some literature. When I explained he was a protester, they handed it right back to him.

The companion and I escorted the client down the sidewalk. We were in a line: E, companion, client and me. E started with “Women regret their abortions. Don’t lead her into this place.” The companion waved dismissively at him and said, “Oh, I know all about abortion. I have had 10 already.” There was a pause then E leaned over towards the client and said “You don’t have to go into that place.” The client turned to me and said, “I am not listening to him.” I replied that was best.

It was great to witness these two completely ignoring the words meant to hurt and shame them…I felt privileged to witness this calm confidence.

Elsewhere in her blog, the clinic escort talks about sidewalk counselors offering to help the women with adoption or other alternatives. Pro-lifers often offer free help to pregnant women outside abortion clinics. To the escort, this is “shaming.”
It’s takes a person who has embraced a truly hardcore pro-choice position to consider a woman who has had 10 abortions empowered. Is this the ideal world for clinic workers and escorts? A world where women use abortion as birth control, having multiple abortions and then getting pregnant again and again? How can repeatedly having an invasive surgical procedure that raises the risk of ectopic pregnancy, premature birth, and miscarriage be empowering?
According to the Guttmacher Institute, 47% of all abortions are repeat abortions. Among the women who have repeat abortions, 59% have had one previous abortion (and are getting their second), 25% have had two (and are getting their third), and 15% have had at least three (and are getting their fourth or more).

In an article about repeat abortions, pro-choice author Jennifer Baumgardner (who started the “I had an abortion” T-shirt campaign) says the following:

In the clinic world, repeat visitors are called, not unkindly, “frequent fliers.” The reason that casual term is not an insult is simply due to how common multiple abortions are. …

Virtually everyone I’ve spoken to was working the clinic has a story of one patient who had not two or three abortions, but 20 or more despite contraceptive counseling with each clinic visit. (1)

A clinic worker participated in a question-and-answer session on Reddit.
One reader asked the unnamed clinic worker the following question:

Q. Have you seen women get several abortions? Or use this as a method of birth control?

A. Unfortunately yes. Their contraceptive choices are always stressed at these appointments but some women simply do not wish to use birth control.

In an interview on Nightline on January 11, 2006, Martin Bashir spoke with abortionist William Harrison.
Harrison comments, “I’ve had lots of patients who come in for second, third, fourth, fifth, even one who had nine abortions.”

When asked, “Is that really appropriate?,” he replied: “If she needs nine abortions, yeah. … Basically, abortion is a method of birth control. You know, it’s not the best method of birth control. But all it does is stop the birth of a baby that a woman doesn’t want at a time she doesn’t want it.”
A clinic worker who responded to a post on The Abortioneers about repeat abortion said the following in response to the blog writer’s question about whether repeat abortions made clinic workers uncomfortable:
I dunno, the more I talk to people about it I come to find that some women simply don’t want to use hormonal/unnatural contraception. Period. And these are not always poor, disadvantage, unaware women. Just as responsible and knowledgeable women make the choice to have abortions, those same women sometimes choose not to use anything. And that’s still OK!
I tried to explain this once to a friend who just couldn’t believe it, and understandably so. But I think it’s unsafe to typecast the “repeat offenders[.]“

The blogger herself states:

The patients who have had more than three abortions are few and far between. But, the fact of the matter is there are women who will present in a clinic five, six, seven times for a procedure. This makes a lot of people, myself included, uncomfortable on some level.

A different clinic worker who writes for the same blog said the following in another post:

Sometimes, just to feel people out, I ask, “How do you feel about repeat abortions?” Some people will answer, “One is OK, but more than that is just irresponsible,” which I may use as a teaching opportunity, or I might just walk away. It depends on my mood. But one person answered, “It’s an expensive type of birth control, but if that’s a woman’s preference, that’s fine with me.” That counted as a good answer.

Is this the true pro-choice litmus test, then–embracing the use of abortion as a form of birth control? The logical pro-choice answer would be yes. If there’s nothing wrong with abortion, if it is simply the removal of tissue or the emptying of the uterus, there is no reason why women shouldn’t have one or two or 10 abortions. But some clinic workers, who are not fully hardened to the reality of abortion, do feel uncomfortable when the same women come in again and again.
The blog “RealChoice” by Christina Dunigan quotes a letter a pro-choice columnist received from a nurse who works in an abortion clinic that does late-term abortions. First, the clinic worker writing the letter, identified only as Kay, talks about the typical abortion done at her clinic. In the words of the columnist:

Every so often, a letter arrives in a columnist’s mailbag that throws a hand grenade right into the middle of a long-held view…. The letter came from a Registered General Nurse named Kay who works on a gynecological ward that regularly deals with late abortions. She apologized for the “unpleasant and upsetting aspects of her letter” but felt her points needed to be said. I agree, and felt it also warranted a wider audience. Apparently, at 20 weeks, tablets can be given to kill the fetus prior to expulsion. But at 24 weeks it is sufficiently strong to survive the treatment and many are born with signs of life. “It is all too easy for people to picture a clump of cells or mush. People don’t want to picture perfectly-formed miniature babies and I don’t blame them. I was once the same. But having cut the umbilical cord on one who survived, then had to watch him gasp for breath for ten minutes on the side of a sink before he died, the sight will haunt me forever.

The reason given in this particular termination was that the mother’s current boyfriend had a toddler son who might get jealous of a new baby. It took them 21 weeks to come to that conclusion.
The pro-choice columnist then says the following:

Kay doesn’t believe in criticizing or hounding women who have to make this extremely tough decision due to severe disability. Her feelings are reserved solely for those who use termination as a form of contraception. Women who, up until last week, I hoped were few and far between. But, according to Kay, these terminations far outstrip those carried out because of fetal abnormality or genuine emotional distress. She says:

‘There are girls who come back five or six times demanding terminations and they get them. How can someone coming in for their fifth termination be allowed to keep saying it is due to emotional distress? I should imagine in ten year’s time the emotional distress of being allowed to have five terminations is going to take its toll. What is going on?

How should pro-lifers respond to women who use abortion as birth control? These women seem to confirm the worst stereotypes that anti-abortion activists have about women who abort – that they are uncaring and irresponsible. But if you look deeper, many of these women are suffering from emotional turmoil.

In father Frank Pavone’s book Ending Abortion, Not Just Fighting It, he quotes Dr. Theresa Burke, who gives some perspective in her book Forbidden Grief:

Repeat abortions and replacement pregnancies are two common ways in which women reenact elements of their abortion trauma.

Pavone also quotes mental health professional Dr. Philip Ney saying the following:

Tragedy is repeated not because we do not understand, but because we are trying to understand. Meaning that a woman is reliving her abortion experience trying to resolve the trauma by having a replacement child, but then realizes that the same reason she had an abortion before is still present.

These doctors explain how the emotional trauma of abortion can translate itself into repeating the same traumatic event again and again. Rather than being cold and uncaring, many of these women are in fact deeply hurting. The abortion clinic is not helping them by sending them on their way, again and again, to repeat the destructive pattern. From father Frank Pavone:

`An underlying conflict, perhaps created by previous trauma, is unresolved. We find we cannot resolve it by simply replaying it in our minds. So we relive it. This happens in many arenas of life. The sexually abused child may become seductive; the child who lacked touch and affection may seek an emotionally cold partner, and so forth. We repeat what we don’t understand, in the hopes of mastering it.

He eloquently gives pro-lifers guidance in how to respond to these women:

Repeat abortions can be repulsive even to people who call themselves “pro-choice” and even to those who work in abortion mills. Sometimes the reaction is exasperated, indignant, “How could she do that??!!” But we should change the question and ask instead, “How can I help you to heal?” That question expresses the heart of the pro-life movement, a movement that knows that the destiny of mother and child are forever intertwined and that we can’t love one without loving the other.

Rather than judging mothers who repeatedly have abortions, the pro-life movement needs to reach out to them with compassion.
1.   Jennifer Baumgardner “Twice is a Spanking” from the pro-choice book by Krista Jacob. Abortion under Attack: Women on the Challenges Facing Choice (Emeryville, CA: Seal Press, 2006) 222.
Editor’s note. This appeared at liveactionnews.org.

Source: NRLC News

The myths that children of homosexual parents are "no different" Shattered

  

Issue Brief

In a historic study of children raised by homosexual parents, sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin has overturned the conventional academic wisdom that such children suffer no disadvantages when compared to children raised by their married mother and father. Just published in the journal Social Science Research,[1] the most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted on this issue found numerous and significant differences between these groups--with the outcomes for children of homosexuals rated "suboptimal" (Regnerus' word) in almost every category. The Debate Over Homosexual Parents In the larger cultural, political, and legal debates over homosexuality, one significant smaller debate has been over homosexual parents. Do children who are raised by homosexual parents or caregivers suffer disadvantages in comparison to children raised in other family structures--particularly children raised by a married mother and father? This question is essential to political and ethical debates over adoption, foster care, and artificial reproductive technology, and it is highly relevant to the raging debate over same-sex "marriage." The argument that "children need a mom and a dad" is central to the defense of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Here is how the debate over the optimal family structure for children and the impact of homosexual parents has usually gone: Pro-family organizations (like Family Research Council) assert, "Social science research shows that children do best when raised by their own biological mother and father who are committed to one another in a life-long marriage." This statement is true, and rests on a large and robust collection of studies. Pro-homosexual activists respond, "Ah, but most of those studies compared children raised by a married couple with those raised by divorced or single parents--not with homosexual parents." (This is also true--in large part because the homosexual population, and especially the population of homosexuals raising children, is so small that it is difficult to obtain a representative sample.) The advocates of homosexual parenting then continue, "Research done specifically on children raised by homosexual parents shows that there are no differences (or no differences that suggest any disadvantage) between them and children raised by heterosexual parents." Pro-family groups respond with a number of critiques of such studies on homosexual parents. For example, such studies usually have relied on samples that are small and not representative of the population, and they frequently have been conducted by openly homosexual researchers who have an ideological bias on the question being studied. In addition, these studies also usually make comparisons with children raised by divorced or single parents--rather than with children raised by their married, biological mother and father. In fact, an important article published in tandem with the Regnerus study (by Loren Marks, Louisiana State University) analyzes the 59 previous studies cited in a 2005 policy brief on homosexual parents by the American Psychological Association (APA).[2] Marks debunks the APA's claim that "[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents." Marks also points out that only four of the 59 studies cited by the APA even met the APA's own standards by "provid[ing] evidence of statistical power." As Marks so carefully documents, "[N]ot one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children." To summarize, we have been left with large, scientifically strong studies showing children do best with their married mother and father--but which do not make comparisons with homosexual parents or couples; and studies which purportedly show that children of homosexuals do just as well as other children--but which are methodologically weak and thus scientifically inconclusive. The New Family Structures Study--Restoring the "Gold Standard" This logjam of dueling studies has been broken by the work that Regnerus has undertaken. Unlike the many large studies previously undertaken on family structure, Regnerus has included specific comparisons with children raised by homosexual parents. Unlike the previous studies on children of homosexual parents, he has put together a representative, population-based sample that is large enough to draw scientifically and statistically valid conclusions. For these reasons, his "New Family Structures Study" (NFSS) deserves to be considered the "gold standard" in this field. Another improvement Regnerus has made is in his method of collecting data and measuring outcomes for children in various family structures. Some previous studies collected data while the subjects were still children living at home with their parent or parents--making it impossible to know what the effects of the home environment might be once they reach adulthood. Some such studies even relied, in some cases exclusively, on the self-report of the parent. This raised a serious question of "self-presentation bias"--the tendency of the parent to give answers that will make herself and her child look good. Regnerus, on the other hand, has surveyed young adults, ages 18 to 39, and asked them about their experiences growing up (and their life circumstances in the present). While these reports are not entirely objective, they are likely to be more reliable than parental self-reports, and allow evaluation of long-term impacts. The study collected information from its subjects on forty different outcomes. They fall into three groups: Some are essentially yes-or-no questions: are you currently married, are you currently unemployed, have you thought recently about suicide? Other questions asked respondents to place themselves on a scale--for example, of educational attainment, happiness or depression, and household income. Finally, "event-count" outcomes involve reporting the frequency of certain experiences--e.g., smoking marijuana or being arrested--and the number of sex partners. Nearly 15,000 people were "screened" for potential participation in the study; in the end almost 3,000, a representative sample, actually completed the survey questionnaire. Of these, 175 reported that their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship while they were growing up, and 73 said the same about their father. These are numbers just large enough to make some statistically robust conclusions in comparing different family structures. What the Study Found The study looked at 40 different outcomes, but reported data for children with "lesbian mothers" and those with "gay fathers" separately. Therefore, there actually were 80 outcome measures that could be said to compare children with "homosexual parents" to those from other family structures. When compared with outcomes for children raised by an "intact biological family" (with a married, biological mother and father), the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of 80 outcome measures. (The only exceptions: children of "gay fathers" were more likely to vote; children of lesbians used alcohol less frequently; and children of "gay fathers" used alcohol at the same rate as those in intact biological families). Of course, anyone who has had a college course in statistics knows that when a survey shows there are differences between two groups, it is important to test whether that finding is "statistically significant." This is because it is always possible, by chance, that a sample may not accurately reflect the overall population on a particular point. However, through statistical analysis researchers can calculate the likelihood of this, and when they have a high level of confidence that a difference identified in the survey represents an actual difference in the national population, we say that finding is "statistically significant." (This does not mean the other findings are unimportant--just that we cannot have as high a level of confidence in them.) Regnerus has analyzed his findings, and their statistical significance, in two ways--first by a simple and direct comparison between what is reported by the children of homosexual parents and the children of "intact biological families" ("IBFs"), and second by "controlling" for a variety of other characteristics. "Controlling for income," for example, would mean showing that "IBF" children do not do better just because their married parents have higher incomes, but that they do better even when the incomes of their households and the households of homosexual parents are the same. Again, Regnerus has done these comparisons for "LMs" (children of "lesbian mothers") and "GFs" (children of gay fathers) separately. There are eight outcome variables where differences between the children of homosexual parents and married parents were not only present, and favorable to the married parents, but where these findings were statistically significant for both children of lesbian mothers and "gay" fathers and both with and without controls. While all the findings in the study are important, these are the strongest possible ones--virtually irrefutable. Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF): Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%) Have lower educational attainment Report less safety and security in their family of origin Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin Are more likely to suffer from depression Have been arrested more often If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female The high mathematical standard of "statistical significance" was more difficult to reach for the children of "gay fathers" in this study because there were fewer of them. The following, however, are some additional areas in which the children of lesbian mothers (who represented 71% of all the children with homosexual parents in this study) differed from the IBF children, in ways that were statistically significant in both a direct comparison and with controls. Children of lesbian mothers: Are more likely to be currently cohabiting Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance Are less likely to be currently employed full-time Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver." Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others Use marijuana more frequently Smoke more frequently Watch TV for long periods more frequently Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense Differences in Sexuality When comparing children of homosexuals with children of married biological parents, the differences in sexuality--experiences of sexual abuse, number of sexual partners, and homosexual feelings and experiences among the children themselves--were among the most striking. While not all of the findings mentioned below have the same level of "statistical significance" as those mentioned above, they remain important. At one time, defenders of homosexual parents not only argued that their children do fine on psychological and developmental measures, but they also said that children of homosexuals "are no more likely to be gay" than children of heterosexuals. That claim will be impossible to maintain in light of this study. It found that children of homosexual fathers are nearly 3 times as likely, and children of lesbian mothers are nearly 4 times as likely, to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual. Children of lesbian mothers are 75% more likely, and children of homosexual fathers are 3 times more likely, to be currently in a same-sex romantic relationship. The same holds true with the number of sexual partners. Both males and females who were raised by both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have more opposite-sex (heterosexual) partners than children of married biological parents (daughters of homosexual fathers had twice as many). But the differences in homosexual conduct are even greater. The daughters of lesbians have 4 times as many female (that is, same-sex) sexual partners than the daughters of married biological parents, and the daughters of homosexual fathers have 6 times as many. Meanwhile, the sons of both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have 7 times as many male (same-sex) sexual partners as sons of married biological parents. The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% IBF; 31% LM; 10% GF). As to the question of whether you have "ever been physically forced" to have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), affirmative answers came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual fathers (3 times as many). Again, when Regnerus breaks these figures out for females (who are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse in general), such abuse was reported by 14% of IBFs, but 3 times as many of the LMs (46%) and GFs (52%). These data require more detailed exploration and explanation. A number of researchers have pointed out that self-identified homosexual adults (both men and women) are more likely to report having been victims of child sexual abuse. However, Family Research Council and other pro-family organizations have been criticized for also pointing to evidence suggesting that homosexual men are more likely to commit acts of child sexual abuse than are heterosexual men. And experts in child sexual abuse in general say that men are most often the perpetrators, regardless of the sex of the victim. Therefore, the finding that children of lesbian mothers are significantly more likely to have been victims of sexual touching by "a parent or adult caregiver" than even the children of homosexual fathers is counter-intuitive. However, it is important to note what we do not know about such experiences from the data that have been published. The fact that a child of a lesbian mother was touched by "a parent or adult caregiver" does not mean that the lesbian mother was herself the parent or caregiver who did the "touching." An alternative scenario mentioned by Regnerus, for example--hypothetical, but plausible--is one in which a child is molested by her biological father; her mother divorces her father; and the mother later enters into a lesbian relationship. Limitations of the Study While the Regnerus study is a vast improvement over virtually all the prior research in the field, it still leaves much to study and learn about homosexual parents and their effect on children. Author Mark Regnerus emphasizes the traditional caveat in social science, warning against leaping to conclusions regarding "causality." In other words, just because there are statistical correlations between having a homosexual parent and experiencing negative outcomes does not automatically prove that having a homosexual parent is what caused the negative outcomes--other factors could be at work. This is true in a strict scientific sense--but because Regnerus carefully controlled for so many other factors in the social environment, the study gives a clear indication that it is this parental characteristic which best defines the household environment that produces these troubling outcomes. The large number of significant negative outcomes in this study gives legitimate reason for concern about the consequences of "homosexual parenting." The definition of what it means to have a homosexual parent is also a loose one in this study--by necessity, in order to maximize the sample size of homosexual parents. Not all of those who reported that a parent was in a same-sex relationship even lived with that parent during the relationship; many who did, did not live with the partner as well. Only 23% of those with a lesbian mother, and only 2% of those with a homosexual father, had spent as long as three years living in a household with the homosexual parent and the parent's partner at the same time. Details like this involving the actual timeline of these children's lives can reportedly be found in Regnerus' dataset, which is to be made available to other researchers later this year. Figures like these suggest a need for more research, to distinguish, for example, the effects of living with a homosexual parent from having a non-custodial one, or the effects of living with a homosexual single parent vs. a homosexual couple. But they also point out something of note for public policy debates on "gay families"--the stereotype put forward by pro-homosexual activists, of a same-sex couple jointly parenting a child from birth (following either adoption or the use of artificial reproductive technology), represents a scenario that is extraordinarily rare in real life. Most "homosexual parents" have their own biological children who were conceived in the context of a previous heterosexual relationship or marriage, which then ended before the person entered into homosexual relationships. Conclusion The articles by Marks and Regnerus have completely changed the playing field for debates about homosexual parents, "gay families," and same-sex "marriage." The myths that children of homosexual parents are "no different" from other children and suffer "no harm" from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever. [1] Mark Regnerus, "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study," Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 752-770; online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610 [2] Loren Marks, "Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association's brief on lesbian and gay parenting," Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 735-751; online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

Who Supports Redefing Marriage

 

Millennials the only generation whose majority supports same-sex ‘marriage’

by Ben Johnson

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 28, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) –
 Support for same-sex "marriage" is split significantly along generational lines, with opposition to marriage redefinition remaining strong among older generations and only millennials mustering majority support, according to a recent poll.

A Pew Research Forum this month found that 70 percent of those born after 1981 favor marriage redefinition. No other generation crossed the threshold of 50 percent.
Support for preserving marriage tracked largely with age. The second greatest support for marriage redefinition was among Generation X, those born between 1965-1980, with 49 percent.
America's largest population bloc, Baby Boomers, trailed far behind, with only 38 percent in favor of homosexual “marriages.”

Their views are not so different from their parents, the Silent Generation. Less than one-third of those born before 1945 would redefine marriage.
Overall, opposition to same-sex “marriage” actually increased since last year, by one percent.
Forty-nine percent of whites and 38 percent of blacks approve of homosexual matrimony. Hispanic views were not reported separately.
The polling company did not report the level of opposition to same-sex “marriage.”
 
Among religious communities, only a majority of the “unaffiliated” and white mainline Protestants support redefining marriage (77 percent and 55 percent). Some 48 percent of Catholics, 34 percent of black Protestants, and 24 percent of white evangelical Protestants said they support changing the definition.
Liberals strongly favored the change (72 percent), while conservatives strongly opposed it (only 27 percent back the idea). A majority of self-described “moderates” support the idea.

Source: Lifesite News

Silent Pulpits

Reagan: Churches - Time to Fight Back!

By Michael Reagan  

 

You can't win the fight if you don't put on the gloves.
A punch-drunk, old heavyweight boxer knows that's a truism, but not the churches of America.
The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state by a 52 to 47 margin in 2008 but has since been declared unconstitutional by federal courts.
Fox TV, Rush Limbaugh and other talk-show pundits have weighed in, arguing the conservative -- and moral -- position that sanctifying gay marriage with the grace of the U.S. Constitution is not only wrong but a serious threat to the culture of this country.
But those media outlets often speak to those who are already in the choir. That leaves a lot of other Americans who aren't hearing anyone preaching the conservative argument on gay marriage.
I don't expect the GOP to provide any leadership. Republicans are too busy cat-fighting with each other and making sure their presidential choice will be whooped by Hillary Clinton in 2016.
And where in the heck are the churches on the issue of legalizing gay marriage?
Where are the Protestants, Jews and Catholics? Have they lost their tongues? Their hearts and wills? Their institutional you-know-whats?
Where's the moral outrage? Why aren't thousands of our pastors, priests and rabbis shouting from their pulpits? Why aren't they leading their congregations through the streets in mass protest?
Why aren't their bishops appearing on the tube with David Gregory and Piers Morgan to defend the institution of marriage as a union of one man and one woman?
Like the bank executives that are too chicken to stand up to the federal bullies in Washington, and like the energy company bosses in California who won't stand up to the Green Socialists in Sacramento, the churches cower in fear.
Are they afraid to lose their 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status by engaging in political activity? Are they afraid to be derided as religious nuts and cultural Cro-Magnons by the liberal media?
Or are our churches and their comfortable leaders simply no longer willing to fight for what is right?
This fight over Proposition 8 isn't just about saying it should be legal in the eyes of government for two people of the same sex to get married in California.
It's ultimately about changing the culture of the entire country; it inevitably will lead to teaching our public school kids that gay marriage is a perfectly fine alternative and no different than traditional marriage. There is also a very slippery slope leading to other alternative relationships and the unconstitutionality of any law based on morality. Think about polygamy, bestiality, and perhaps even murder.
Churches should be in the vanguard of the fight to defend the culture against legalized gay marriage, not hiding in their pews.
Sure, the mainstream liberal media will be against them and will ignore them as much as they can. But if the churches show up en masse -- and make sure millions of their members' voices are heard -- the media will be forced to cover them, and even the Supreme Court will feel the political wind.
Meanwhile, as the High Court decides our fate, it's time for the churches to get engaged and start fighting for America, instead of wimping out. If it takes them giving up their 501(c)(3) status to start fighting for righteousness, then I'm all for it.
---
Copyright ©2013 Michael Reagan. Michael Reagan is the son of President Ronald Reagan, a political consultant, and the author of "The New Reagan Revolution" (St. Martin's Press). He is the founder of the email service reagan.com and president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation. Visit his websites at www.reagan.com and www.michaelereagan.com. Send comments to Reagan@caglecartoons.com. Follow @reaganworld on Twitter. Mike's column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. For info on using columns contact Cari Dawson Bartley at cari@cagle.com or call 800-696-7561.

Source: GOP USA

Alleluia!

                                                       He Is Risen------ Indeed Truly Risen

Supremes and Redefinition of Marriage

 

The Unseemly Campaign Directed at One Man

by Austin Ruse

Many years ago I sat with Justice Scalia at a Catholic prayer breakfast in New York City. As we ate, a waiter approached, leaned into Scalia and handed him a FedEx package. This was suspicious since FedEx does not deliver on Sunday.

Scalia said, “Must be a bomb” and tossed it unopened into the middle of the table where it laid ticking for the length of the morning. Scalia said it was probably some message about a case, probably Roe v. Wade. You got the feeling he gets this kind of thing all the time.
Scalia went on to say that in simpler times, members of the public likely did not know the names of the Supreme Court justices and that is the way it is supposed to be. The Court’s decision should not be so intrusive into people’s lives that it would occur to them to learn their names let along lobby them.

The Supreme Court has likely never seen a campaign like the one unfolding around the twin Prop 8 and DOMA cases. One experienced court watcher thought maybe there was a comparable campaign around the Webster and Casey decisions on abortion a quarter century ago but even that is unlikely given the subsequent explosion of new media, Facebook, Twitter and so on.
The avalanche of what flacks call “earned media” is impressive. Over the past month or more there has been a steady drumbeat growing louder and louder about all things “gay.” No gay matter is too trivial to report. Just yesterday it was announced the weekend anchor of the Today show came out as a lesbian. Ten bucks if you know her name without looking.
A front page Style Section story on the day of the Prop 8 hearing is a time line of gay TV and movies,—“Yep, we’ve come a long way”—starting in 1993 with Tom Hanks’s Oscar winning role in the Aids movie Philadelphia all the way to the gay dad in Modern Family today.
Full page ads in the Washington Post announced this week “America’s leading businesses agree: same-sex couples deserve to be treated equally” signed by Morgan Stanley, Verizon, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Mars, Google, Amazon, Levi Strauss, Walt Disney, Pfizer, Panasonic and on and on.

It made big news as week by week new political or entertainment celebrities “came out” for homosexual marriage. Clint Eastwood did it. Apparently all has been forgiven for not supporting Barack Obama and comparing him to an empty chair. It was even bigger news when Senator Rob Portman announced his son was homosexual and his previous deeply held religious belief about man-woman marriage was out the window. Sorry God.

On March 20 a group of NFL players and rappers what the Washington Post called “traditional tough guys” announced their support for same-sex marriage and this was dutifully reported nationally.
It made big news on March 21 when the American Academy of Pediatrics announced for the first time their support for homosexual marriage. They cited studies that purport to show that children raised by homosexuals do just as well or better than children raised by moms and dads. Forget that among the 59 studies they cite, none of them, according to Loren Marks of LSU, are considered scientifically rigorous enough to make the case they’re supposed to make.
Then there was the amicus brief by a gaggle of former Republican office holders, “consultants,” and “advisers.” More than 100 of them signed a brief saying, “It is precisely because marriage is so important in producing and protecting strong and stable family structures that amici do not agree that the government can rationally promote the goal of strengthening families by denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.” Do these GOP courtiers really suggesting their former bosses, George Bush and Mitt Romney, are irrational?

And let’s not forget Bill Clinton ceremoniously announcing he now opposed the Defense of Marriage Act which he signed 17 years ago, or the slick soft focus campaign commercial Hillary Clinton did for the incredibly wealthy Human Rights Campaign in which she said “Gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights.”
You would think this was the only issue before the Court and that the wheels of Constitutional law ground to a halt during the period to deal with “marriage equality.” Bet you didn’t know the Court also dealt water run off, and the use of federal roads by lumberjacks. If they only were about, say, “water run off equality” or the use of roads by gay lumberjacks, folks might have noticed.
It really was not supposed to be this way. The big decisions of America are to be decided not by nine unelected judges but by the people.
Homosexuals compare their struggle to blacks. But no one suggests that blacks were not kept out of the political process and needed relief from the Court. But can anyone say with a straight face that homosexuals are similarly powerless? Has there ever been a 2% minority in this country that has had such political power that they have co-opted all the elite institutions to their cause. They were even able to convince the governments of California and the United States to abrogate their responsibilities to defend laws passed by the people of California and the US Congress.
And the really troublesome aspect to all of this is that all of this is aimed less at the whole court than at one man, the swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy. It comes down to one guy. It really was not supposed to be this way.
About that package at the prayer breakfast. It lay there for the whole morning making all of us nervous, particularly after Scalia’s bomb comment. Scalia finished speaking and left the room. A friend grabbed the mysterious package and ripped it open, rather abruptly for many of us. I was so worried it might be a bomb that I memorized the serial number on the package in case I survived the blast. My friend Dino said an Act of Contrition. Turns out it was a petition…on Roe.

 

The views expressed by the authors and editorial staff are not necessarily the views of
Sophia Institute, Holy Spirit College, or the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts. 

By Austin Ruse

Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute focusing on international legal and social policy.

Source: Crisis 

Students for Life New Web Site 4 Teens

  Students for Life launches new website for high school students

• by Heidi Miller

High School is where Planned Parenthood first targets young girls to build, what they hope, will be a life-long financial relationship.
- Students for Life President Kristan Hawkins

To meet the growing need of pro-life support for high school students, Students for Life has launched a new site specifically for high school students. High school students have an opportunity to help shape the values and beliefs of their peers for the good on the pro-life issue, and Students for Life would like to partner with these students to help impact individual communities and school. The new website offers advice for starting a pro-life group on a high school campus or with a home-school group, information on legal rights for those involved in operating such pro-life groups, inspiring stories, and much more.

Missy Martinez, the coordinator of this new high school (and home-school) initiative, believes that the high school age range must not be overlooked:

Abortion isn’t just a college student issue[;] unfortunately, it’s happening in our high schools as well. We want high school students to be equipped to stand for Life, in their schools, youth groups, and communities, reaching out to their peers, and helping those peers facing unplanned, crisis pregnancies[.]

With the success of the of the Students for Life program on the college level, the leadership knew it was time for an expansion. According to Students for Life President Kristan Hawkins:

With the wild success of our college Students for Life program in starting and growing over 700 pro-life groups across the country, we saw a great opportunity to extend our focus to high school age students, too.

Heidi Miller is an attorney, specializing in litigation. She enjoys international travel, cooking, spending time with family and friends, and turning everyday life into an adventure!   

 

Source: Live Action News

 

Life is Beautiful

Rapper Mack Maine reveals he was almost aborted by his mother

• by Kristi Burton Brown

Scene from the “Celebrate” music video.

MTV has reported that Mack Maine’s mother nearly aborted him. At nearly the last possible moment, she changed her mind and walked out of the abortion clinic.

Mack Maine is the thirty-year-old president of Young Money Entertainment and a rapper. Recently, he released a single entitled “Celebrate” with Lil Wayne and Talib Kweli. (Warning – there are explicit lyrics in the song.) The song talks of new days, having a purpose, and of getting your life right before death comes and you meet God.
The song also takes a pro-life turn, with the inclusion of part of Maine’s personal story:

So every time I speak, look I try to speak life
Y’all tweaking for broads, I tweak life
They said I was s’posed to die as a fetus
My momma said I bind that Devil in the name of Jesus
So now I’m here just to talk to y’all
Come and stroll with me homie, let me walk wit’ y’all
Ten million ways to die so I chose
To get my life right by the end of the road

On Wednesday, Maine was interviewed on RapFixLive, where he shared the full story behind his song lyrics. MTV reports:

‘My mom was about to abort me. She was about to have an abortion. She was lying on the table and she changed her life at that moment,’ Mack said open and honestly.
Moments before the procedure, the rapper’s mother had a routine consult and immediately changed her mind, choosing to give birth to her son. ‘She changed her life that day, she got saved and became a Christian,’ he said.

Maine’s story illustrates the great strength of women who choose to give life to their children. It also illustrates that no choice is over until it’s truly over. A woman has the right to change her mind about abortion at the very last minute, and she should never let anyone tell her otherwise.
Sadly, there are some abortion clinics – like the Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs,which is currently being sued – that refuse to let women change their minds. Some abortions truly are forced, no matter what choice a woman actually makes.
Maine’s story also demonstrates that we all have our own choice to make: will we speak for life, or will we remain silent? We are here. We were given life. Will we use that life to bring others to life as well? As the lyrics of “Celebrate” say:

Harsh reality is what I’ve been through
But I’m not alone, ask her and him too
And they shall tell ya, ain’t nothin’ better
Than the smell of a new day
I know the ocean runs dry and the sky gets dark
And ya don’t see what He’s trying to show ya
And I know the wall may seem tall
But if we help each other I guarantee we get over
And once I’m over, I’ll reach back for my brother
And pull him over as well

About Kristi Burton Brown

Kristi Burton Brown is a pro-life activist in her home state of Colorado, a pro-bono attorney for Life Legal Defense Fund, an allied attorney for Alliance Defense Fund, and a stay-at-home mom. She is married to the amazing David Brown, and together, they have the cutest baby girl in the world! Kristi loves her Savior, Jesus Christ, speaking out for the truth, reading historical fiction, scrapbooking, politics, and cooking.

She also has her own blog at: www.thelostgenerations.wordpress.com

  Source: Live Action News

 

 

1st Rule of Medicine- Do No Harm- Not Followed

Abortion Doc Gosnell Never Tried to Revive Woman Killed in Abortion

by Steven Ertelt | Philadelphia, PA | LifeNews.com 

During the testimony in the murder trial of abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell, numerous revelations have surfaced about the horrors that took place at his dilapidated late-term abortion clinic.
Gosnell has been charged with eight counts of murder and several of his staff at the abortion center, including his wife and sister-in-law, have been charged as well in the case with assisting in botched abortions, practicing medicine without a license or covering up the actions of those who did. The counts include grisly infanticide s that involved Gosnell snipping the spines with scissors of babies who had purposefully been prematurely born so they could be killed moments later.
This week, a fireman who responded to the emergency call Gosnell placed after killing a woman in a failed late-term abortion revealed the callous disregard Gosnell had about her life — as he apparently never tried to revive her.
From a local news report:

A Philadelphia fire lieutenant testified Monday that Dr. Kermit Gosnell seemed “confused and discombobulated” when firefighters answered a 911 call about a patient who died during an abortion.
Lt. Don Burgess told the jury hearing Gosnell’s murder trial that firefighters arrived at 11:15 p.m., Nov. 19, 2009, outside the Women’s Medical Society clinic, 3801 Lancaster Ave.
“We were perplexed when we responded to a clinic,” Burgess testified. “What kind of clinic is open this late at night?”
Burgess said they were led through a “maze to a room where we found a female nude from the waist down and with her feet in stirrups.”
A female worker and Gosnell were there but neither was doing anything, and there was no sign emergency resuscitation had been tried.
“The doctor was confused,” Burgess said, responding to questions from Assistant District Attorney Edward Cameron. “I asked him what happened, and he blurted out something I couldn’t understand.”
“I’ve got to tell the family what happened,” Gosnell said, according to Burgess. “I’m going to bring the family back here to tell them what happened.”
Burgess said he vetoed that idea as his paramedics continued working on the unresponsive woman.

Burgess was referring to Karnamaya Mongar, 41, a Virginia woman originally from Bhutan who died after an abortion Gosnell did at 19 weeks of pregnancy. A medical examiner testified in the Kermit Gosnell murder trial Tuesday and testified that an autopsy confirmed that Gosnell killed Mongar.
Assistant Medical Examiner Gary Collins confirmed that the woman died from the abortion due to Gosnell and his staff’s medical incompetence in terms of administering a proper amount of anesthesia rather than her dying of some other cause.
From the Philadelphia newspaper:

Gosnell, 72, is charged with third-degree murder in Mongar’s death, which prosecutors say was caused when Gosnell’s untrained workers gave the diminutive woman multiple doses of Demerol and other drugs to anesthetize her.
Defense attorney Jack McMahon, however, has argued that Mongar hid respiratory problems that made her more vulnerable to Demerol.
Mongar, a native of the Asian nation of Bhutan, lived for 20 years in a refugee settlement camp in Nepal before emigrating with her family to the United States four months before she died.

Collins conceded that Mongar’s lungs showed carbon particles but said it was the normal soot inhaled by any person, not sign of a disease such “Black lung” that afflicts coal miners.
Collins told the Common Pleas Court jury hearing Gosnell’s murder trial that Mongar died when her heart stopped and her brain died because of a lack of oxygen. Collins said the most likely cause was an excessive amount of Demerol found in blood drawn during her autopsy.

Collins is expected to spend the entire day on the witness stand as the prosecution’s case goes through it seventh day of testimony.
On Tuesday, a toxicologist testified that Mongar was given far more of a powerful sedative than her patient records showed.
Timothy Rohrig, a forensic toxicologist and director of the Sedgwick County, Kan. Regional Forensic Science Center, testified that records from Gosnell’s clinic showed Mongar had been administered a total of 150 milligrams of Demerol in the 24 hours before the abortion.

Rohrig said that clinic records were inconsistent with the 710 micrograms of Demerol found in a blood sample taken during Mongar’s autopsy.
Rohrig testified that there was no way 710 micrograms could remain in her blood shortly after death if she had only been given 150 milligrams.
“It was more than 150 and probably a lot more than 150,” Rohrig testified.

Gosnell was so inept as to the proper use of anesthesia during an abortion procedure that his shoddy clinic standards led to one woman dying from a legal abortion. That was the conclusion of a Pittsburgh anesthesiologist, who told a jury during previously that the amount of anesthesia given to one woman during her abortion was enough to kill her.
A political refugee from the country of Bhutan, Mongar went to Gosnell on Nov. 19, 2009 for the abortion and, prior to it, was given numerous doses of pain and sedation drugs by an individual who was not a licensed medical practitioner.
Massive amounts of drugs found in the victim’s system led authorities to suspect Gosnell was illegally prescribing pain-killers. He temporarily lost his medical license in both Pennsylvania and neighboring Delaware. Pennsylvania officials suspect Mongar died from the botched abortion in part because she had been treated by unlicensed personnel.

The State Board of Medicine says Gosnell had the unlicensed staff member give vaginal exams and administer the drugs Demerol, Promethazine and Diazepam. He was eventually fined $1,000 for the violations.

She experienced severe cramping and asked for additional pain medication. The unlicensed assistant contacted Gosnell, who instructed her to administer more doses. Near the end of the procedure, Mongar began losing color and had no pulse.
The family has previously spoken out about her death.
“We want justice, this doctor has to be out of that clinic or he should not be treating anybody,” Damber Ghalley told CNN Monday. “And the things that happen to my sister, I don’t want to happen to anybody in the future.”
He told CNN “the clinic was so dirty, filthy with blood stains and a dirty floor, everywhere dirty, I cannot describe how dirty it was.” 

“It’s unforgettable, my sister will never come back and it’s sad,” Ghalley said. “All the happiness is gone, they miss their mother every day and night,” Ghalley said, referring to Mongar’s four children.”
Karamaya’s daughter Yashoda Gurung is also speaking out and said the abortion turned bad when the overdose of anesthesia kicked in.

“We were waiting but it was a long time and my mom was not outside,” she told NBC Philadelphia, saying she began to panic when an ambulance pulled up to the abortion facility.
Gurung said an abortion center worked told her nothing was wrong: “She said, ‘your mom is good, don’t worry about that.’”
She said Gosnell’s staff moved the family to another room away from Mongar and would not give them updates on her condition. She finally saw her mother as emergency workers took her to the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania where, hours later, Mongar was pronounced dead.
“I want justice,” says Gurung.

So True ObamaCare Will Cost...

 

The Unaffordable ‘Affordable Care Act’

March 29, 2013, 8:23 am by Roger Aronoff Leave a Comment

Accuracy in Media

The apparent costs of Obamacare are going up. And up, and up. How much additional cost will the average private payer see in the coming year? The Society of Actuaries, according to The Wall Street Journal, has issued a new report “warning that the cost of medical claims in the new individual-insurance market could rise by an average of 32% per person over the first few years the law is in place” with changes “very different depending on the state” (emphasis added). The Associated Press describes the study as a “political headache” for the Obama Administration rather than a headache for the average American.

With numbers like these it’s not surprising that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has finally owned up to the fact that the so-called Affordable Care Act may be producing something less affordable for U.S. citizens. However, she sells it as citizens purchasing a higher value product overall, which, for the poor, is subsidized by the government. In reality, government subsidies for health care mean that someone—usually from the richer side of the equation—ends up paying to cover for the poorer masses. “These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time, and so there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market,” said Secretary Sebelius to reporters on Tuesday (emphasis added). “But we feel pretty strongly that with subsidies available to a lot of that population that they are really going to see much better benefit for the money that they’re spending.”
“Ms. Sebelius added that those customers currently pay more for their health care if their plans have high out-of-pocket costs, high deductibles or exclude particular types of coverage, such as mental health treatment,” reports Louise Radnofsky in the Wall Street Journal piece.
What Secretary Sebelius means by a “really fully insured product” is a low up-front cost plan where the true price of health care treatments are hidden from the consumer. Eliminating high deductibles in favor of a more indirect system exacerbates the economic effects that third-party payment has already had on health care, causing ballooning costs as customers purchase medical treatment irrespective of its true price.

“The people the law intended to help are actually being hurt,” Chris Self, owner of Pathway Health Insurance Experts, recently told Fox News. Yet some media outlets continue to champion the benefits of a law which belies its moniker. “In its third year, the Affordable Care Act will give Americans access to the health insurance they need,” reads the subtitle for one USA Today editorial by two Democrat representatives “In the three years since it passed Congress, the health law has helped dramatically slow the growth in premium increases by requiring insurers to justify large rate hikes and spend at least 80% of premiums on health care,” write Representatives Sander Levin and Jim McDermott for USA Today. But not all the provisions of Obamacare are active yet. Again, Rep. Levin and Rep. McDermott further the notion that subsidies will offset the costs of predicted increases. “What’s more, many will be eligible for new subsidies to help keep the plans affordable,” write Rep. Levin and McDermott. Where does the money for these subsidies come from? From the American taxpayer, of course. Claiming that subsidies offset costs ignores the source of this funding.
This assertion that subsidies can override the effects of increasing health care costs due to Obamacare can, and should be, laid at the Administration’s doorstep. “The Obama administration challenged the design of the study [by the Society of Actuaries], saying it focused only on one piece of the puzzle and ignored cost relief strategies in the law, such as tax credits to help people afford premiums and special payments to insurers who attract an outsize share of the sick,” reports Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar for the AP. The AP article also claims that “if you have an employer plan, like most workers and their families, odds are you don’t have much to worry about.” But in fact, many companies are topping off the number of full-time employees at 49 because with 50 employees, they are required to cover their insurance or “pay a $2,000 penalty for each uncovered worker beyond 30,” leaving the part-timers to fend for themselves in the mostly unrealized state exchanges.

There was even one speaker at the Center for American Progress—a George Soros-funded, left-wing think tank which has heavily influenced the Obama Administration—who demonstrated that he gets it. “The problem is we don’t understand this is an industry where the entire incentives are wrong,” said Giovanni Colella, CEO and co-founder of Castlight Health, at a recent CAP event (emphasis added):
“They [hospitals] make money because they can command any price they want,” argued Colella. “If you’re a big medical center you can go to the insurance companies now and ask for any price you want and you’re going to make money.”


In fact, “It is estimated that by next year, about 50% of U.S. doctors will be working for a hospital or hospital-owned health system,” remarked Scott Gottlieb in a recent editorial for The Wall Street Journal. “A recent survey by the Medical Group Management Association shows a nearly 75% increase in the number of active doctors employed by hospitals or hospital systems since 2000, reflecting a trend that sharply accelerated around the time that ObamaCare was enacted.”
Plus, there is very little understanding of what the impact will be of the additional 20,000 pages of regulations that have already been issued in the name of Obamacare, much less how companies will struggle to comply.
It’s not surprising then that few states want to participate in the high costs associated with Obamacare. To date, “At the state level, most Republican governors have refused to set up insurance exchanges, and many have refused to expand Medicaid, which is the primary vehicle for insuring those currently uninsured,” reports Ezra Klein for Bloomberg. Actually, the number is 34 states, accounting for “roughly two-thirds of the U.S. population,” according to Michael F. Cannon, writing for The Wall Street Journal. The “[Republicans’] slogan, ‘repeal and replace,’ has given way to ‘resist and annoy,’” asserts Klein.

“Unable to get rid of Obamacare, many have settled on a strategy of making it function as poorly as possible.” With effects like these, can you really blame them?
Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at roger.aronoff@aim.org.

Source: NRLC News

HHS Mandate

Religious Liberty Trampled by HHS Mandate

 

Judge dismisses EWTN Lawsuit against HHS Mandate: Network Vows to Continue to Oppose “unjust rules”

 

By Ernest Ohlhoff, director
NRLC Outreach
Editor’s note. The following is based on material provided by EWTN. EWTN Global Catholic Network is available in over 225 million television households in more than 140 countries and territories, making it the largest religious media network in the world.

EWTN President & Chief Executive Officer Michael P. Warsaw

Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn of the U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama issued an order March 25 dismissing EWTN’s lawsuit challenging the government mandate that requires employers to purchase health plans that will pay for drugs and procedures to which they are opposed on moral and religious grounds.

EWTN filed its lawsuit February 9, 2012 and was joined six weeks later by the Attorney General of the State of Alabama who filed a motion to join EWTN as a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Judge Blackburn’s decision essentially dismissed that motion as well.
“While we are extremely disappointed that Judge Blackburn did not rule on the constitutional issues that were at the heart of the EWTN lawsuit, we are not surprised by the decision,” said EWTN President & Chief Executive Officer Michael P. Warsaw. “In every lawsuit filed against the mandate, the government has made promise after promise to amend its unjust rules. As a result, nearly everyone, including the courts, is left waiting to see what the government might or might not do to address the serious issues of conscience that have been raised since the first set of rules were published over a year ago.

It’s not as though Judge Blackburn’s order didn’t find the “real prospect of harm from a concrete regulatory mandate.” She did, which gave the Network adequate legal standing to file the lawsuit.  However, because the government has promised to yet further amend the mandate’s rules, Judge Blackburn’s opinion held that the moving target of the mandate was not yet “ripe” for review. Blackburn’s opinion concluded that “in this case, common sense weighs in favor of withholding judicial review until the new regulations are created and finalized.  At that point, if EWTN still has objections, it may then file suit.”
To which Warsaw responded, “EWTN cannot and will not compromise on our strongly held beliefs on these moral issues,” adding, “We are consulting with our legal team at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty about our available options as we go forward.”

Source NRLC News

Some Information You May Want to Know

 

LIFE FEST FILM FESTIVAL KICKS INTO HIGH GEAR

 

5×5 Filmmaker Challenge and International Voting Now Open

From “Doonby,” which won the 2012 Capra Award (l-r) actor Joe Estevez, actor John Schneider, and producer Mark Joseph.

LOS ANGELES – Organizers of the Life Fest Film Festival are kicking into high gear in anticipation of the event’s third annual presentation in May. In addition to open registration for the festival’s 5×5 Filmmaker Challenge, viewers across the country and from around the world may now vote for their favorite films from the 2012 festival as part of Life Fest International.
“Life Fest calls on everyone interested in telling a compelling story that highlights the intrinsic value of human life to participate in our third annual festival,” said Life Fest Director Brian Johnston. “Filmmakers have a unique voice and powerful tools at their disposal to spread a tremendous message.”

The 5×5 for Life Filmmaker Challenge encourages and nurtures aspiring filmmakers
The 5×5 for Life Filmmaker Challenge is open to students and independent filmmakers and challenges them to produce a five-minute short reinforcing the profound significance of every human life. While helpful, participants need not be located in Los Angeles – in fact, several entries were received last year from outside the United States. Entries which meet all of the requirements will be screened during the Life Fest Film Festival May 9-12, 2013 in Los Angeles and winning filmmakers will have the opportunity to network with some of Hollywood’s leading insiders, including producers, directors, and distributors.

Participants will have a five-day window beginning April 17, 2012, in which to write, shoot, film, and edit a short film (3-5 minutes). At the start of the competition, each team will be given a character, a prop, and a line of dialogue that must appear in the film.  All films must be submitted by April 22, 2013. In addition to being screened during the festival,  awards will also be presented in several categories. Winning teams will be invited to Los Angeles to take part in festival.
More details, including registration information, are now available online at www.lifefilmfest.com/5×5.
“The 5×5 for Life competition will give aspiring filmmakers – regardless of where they are in the world – the chance to showcase their talents in front of some of the most established producers, directors, and distributors in Hollywood,” Johnston noted.

Life Fest International spreads the word around the globe
To reach beyond Los Angeles, Life Fest has created “Life Fest International,” which seeks to bring the films screened at the festival to a global audience. Through Life Fest International, viewers from anywhere are able to screen the films chosen to take place during Life Fest 2012 and vote for their favorites. These winners will be presented with special awards during Life Fest 2013.
Films from 2012 include “October Baby,” which captured Best Film honors, and “Doonby,” which took home the festival’s Capra Award, named in honor of legendary filmmaker Frank Capra.
“With Life Fest, we’re doing something that has never been done before in Hollywood,” Johnston added. “We’re working from within the industry to encourage and nurture films that send a fundamental message to our society: every life matters. Being a part of Life Fest is an opportunity no one should pass up.”

More information about Life Fest

Interviews:
Life Fest Director Brian Johnston and Public Relations Director Derrick Jones are available for interviews about Life Fest Film Festival. To arrange an interview, contact Derrick Jones at (323) 393-0674 or email lifefestpress@gmail.com.

Source NRLC News

Horror Trial Takes a Break

 

Gosnell murder trial ends for the week with another heated exchange

 

By Dave Andrusko

Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore before the jury in the murder trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell
(photo NBC 10)

The murder trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell ended for the week today on a contentious exchange between defense attorney Jack McMahon and Philadelphia Deputy Medical Examiner Dr. Gary Collins.

As explained by the Associated Press, McMahon is offering an alternative explanation for the November 2009 death of Karnamaya Mongar which the prosecution attributes to Gosnell’s untrained staff giving the tiny woman multiple doses of Demerol and other drugs prior to her abortion. Gosnell is also charged with seven counts of first degree murder in the deaths of viable babies aborted alive and then allegedly murdered (as the Grand Jury described it) by “sticking scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and cutting the spinal cord.”

McMahon tried to pounce on Collins’ changing his initial diagnosis of her death–accidental overdose– to homicide. The Associated Press’ MaryClare Dale reported that Collins said he changed his conclusion after touring Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Society abortion clinic and as the Grand Jury investigated what took place there.  (The Grand Jury’s scathing 261-page report formed the basis for the indictment of Gosnell and nine of her employees, including his wife. All pled guilty, save one, who is also on trial in Philadelphia.)

Collins said he classified Karnamaya Mongar’s death as an “accident” the following August, based on the available evidence. But he changed it to “homicide” in December, as a Grand jury investigated Gosnell’s clinic practices and after he toured the shuttered facility. Dale reported

“’From the get go, the circumstances (described) were inaccurate – totally inaccurate,’ Collins insisted. ‘That made it sound like everything was being done above board.’

“He said he never would have imagined the abortion occurred in a clinic that lacked trained staff, up-to-date drugs and equipment, and rescue equipment to revive patients in distress.

“’You would think you would have people trained in CPR and actual nurses, registered nurses, if you are doing abortions,’ Collins said.”

At that juncture, the testimony took an unexpected turn. Collins left the witness stand and tore off the timeline McMahon had prepared on an easel. “Collins then grabbed a marker and started his own outline for the jury, before McMahon protested and the witness was reined in,” Dale wrote.
Collins apologized and the judge told the jury emotions spill over in a criminal courthouse.
McMahon was also attempting to show that despite the very much higher autopsy findings, no one on staff recalled Mongar getting more than 100 milligrams of Demerol throughout the day.

Source: NRLC News