Homosexual Agenda

 

 

Homosexual activists aim to ‘destroy the family’, impose ‘totalitarianism’: gay pro-family activist

by Hilary White, Rome Correspondent

ROME, February 27, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – “I am a homosexual, but I’m against ‘gay marriage,’” a French pro-family activist told an Italian Catholic opinion paper earlier this month.
Jean-Pier-Delaume Myard, spokesman for Manif Pour Tous, told La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana that the “sole purpose” of the homosexualist “gay rights” movement is “destroying the family.”

Myard gave the interview following the first big pro-family Manif Pour Tous event in Italy on February 11.

Myard noted that in a recent talk, he said “we must break the silence” about the real nature of the homosexualist movement, noting that many homosexuals “have nothing to do either closely or from a distance with the gay lobby that has the sole purpose of destroying the family.”
“Since the seventies the gay community in the United States has arrogated to itself the right to speak on behalf of all homosexuals in order to destroy marriage and the family,” he told the Catholic paper. At the start, they were aided by the feminist movement that preceded their own, he said, and have moved from the US to Europe with the help of “astronomical” funding from the EU.
Myard blasted the homosexualist movement for using children as political tools of their ideological aims. Children are treated as trophies in the effort to force states to go along with the ideology, with little regard for their real needs. The emphasis is on the “right to a child” rather than the “rights of the child,” he noted.

“The child is not an object, nor a medicinal product for those who suffer the pain of love,” he added. “25 years ago – today I’m 50 – I posed the question to have a child in order to transmit a heritage, a welfare state. In short, I wanted a child for unjust reasons. Today, as a homosexual I think only of the interests of the child.”

“We must break the silence to say that we can not reasonably accept depriving a child of his social references.”
“Before we talk about freedom and equality to be able to have children or between persons of the same sex, try to think a minute to freedom and equality of the child who will be born in the society that we are preparing.”


“The LGBT community in France, as in Europe, is mainly composed of militants [who achieve their] ideological aims by violent methods,” Myard said.
Because he is a homosexual who opposes the aims of the homosexualist lobby, he says he has received threats on his Facebook page and elsewhere. One said that in a civil war, “I’d be shot for treason to the cause.” Another said he wanted to “cremate” Myard.
“They cannot stand that I do not think like them. I say it loud and clear: it is a homophobic attitude and an indicator of totalitarianism.” Gay ideologues say “that a homosexual cannot think or act for himself.”

Myard insists that he is not alone in opposing the homosexualist ideologues, saying, “Everywhere in Europe there are homosexuals ready to say that the gay lobby does not represent them, but many others are afraid of retaliation.”
He said that the movement is, in fact, “homophobic” because it is trying to force all homosexuals into the same ideologically-defined categories. “The LGBT community reduces homosexuals for their sexual identity. This is an insult, reducing us to a particular category of people, creating a de facto inequality.”

“Instead, we want to be recognized for what we are, men and women, not in terms of our sexual orientation, which only affects our private lives,” he said.
Myard added that most of the “astronomical” funding for the movement in Europe has come directly from the European Union. He cited particularly the group ILGA Europe, that is funded directly by the European Commission, with additional funding from the Netherlands government and various foundations, including the Open Society Institute of billionaire social engineer George Soros.
He cited the recently passed Lunacek Report that tells all EU member states to implement the goals of the LGBT movement in all areas of society. Also recently, the Italian government issued guidelines for journalists mandating they use language that supports the homosexualist lobby’s goals. Developed from a document produced by the Council of Europe, the guidelines warned of professional sanctions and even potential jail time for failing to toe the LGBT line.

Such gains, Myard said, “show that the LGBT lobby considers the European Parliament as a strategic place to advance their causes and achieve changes in European law.”

Source: LifeSite News

Illinois Life Saving Legislation

  

Black pastors and leaders unite for women’s health in Illinois

by Lauren Enriquez

Black leaders in Illinois have closed ranks, calling for increased accountability and safety regulations for abortion mills after the death of Tonya Reaves, who bled to death after a botched abortion in a Chicago Planned Parenthood. Reverend Ceasar LeFlore, Bishop Lance Davis, and State Representative Tom Morrison are leading the crusade for legislative change in the state of Illinois to prevent future tragedies like Reaves’s.
Rev. LeFlore stated: 

While Roe v. Wade provides a women with choice it does not guarantee the safety of her life nor set a standard for abortion clinics demanding due diligence for woman as the tragic death of Tonya Reaves has shown us. We pray Tonya’s death be not in vain. Across Illinois, people are joining together to protect women and girls so that the tragic story of Tonya Reaves will not be repeated. 

Being abandoned after complications is, tragically, a factor that has effected numerous documented deaths of women following abortion. For example, Jennifer Morbelli was abandoned by brazen abortionist LeRoy Carhart after he botched her abortion and was unreachable in the critical hours that ensued. Morbelli died after amniotic fluid seeped into her bloodstream following the abortion.
The Illinois initiative seeks to raise awareness of the need for legislation that protects maternal welfare while simultaneously safeguarding the right to life of the pre-born. Americans United for Life provides evidence of the need for such legislation, listing the undisputed, immediate health risks of abortion, including:

… blood clots, hemorrhage, incomplete abortions, infection, and injury to the cervix and other organs. Abortion can also cause cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest, renal failure, metabolic disorder, shock, and missed ectopic pregnancy.

LeFlore concludes that the legislation his cohort of leaders is seeking to establish is intent not solely on the well-being of the unborn, but also that of every woman and girl who may be faced with an abortion decision in her lifetime:

This is about clinic safety regulations for all. It is intended to ensure a safe environment for women and girls who are having these surgical procedures and to prevent them from being abandoned when a complication arises.

Source: LiveAction News

Unborn Victims and Their Moms

 

Kansas pro-life law helps prosecute cases of abortion-by-deceit

By Kathy Ostrowski, Legislative Director, Kansans for Life

Scott Robert Bollig

It has been well documented for decades that pregnant women have been attacked–and even murdered–in order to kill their unborn children. The development of abortion-inducing drugs, however, has produced a number of cases of abortion-by trickery.
There was nationwide news coverage of the trial and conviction this January of Floridian John Andrew Welden. Welden forged the signature of his father, an obstetrician, to obtain abortion-inducing drugs. Welden scratched off the label and relabeled it as amoxicillin, a common antibiotic, and told his pregnant girlfriend that his father said she had an infection and told her to take the mislabeled medication.

Now comes the indictment of a Kansas man for sneaking crushed abortion pills into his girlfriend’s pancakes, killing their unborn child.
On Tuesday, the office of Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt issued a criminal complaint charging Scott Robert Bollig with first degree  murder, attempted first degree murder, aggravated battery and distributing adulterated food, causing the death of an unborn child at 8-10 weeks estimated gestation.

Part of the pro-life agenda has been to pass laws that uphold the full humanity of the unborn child, including full prosecution for both victims following crimes committed against pregnant women and their unborn children.

The criminal complaint against Bollig is based on just such a law– “Alexa’s Law,”– passed in Kansas in 2007, read more here and here.
Kansas was the 35th state (of now 37) to pass such a law, modeled on the 2003 federal ‘Unborn Victim of Violence Act designed by the National Right to Life Committee. Alexa’s Law protects unborn children beginning at fertilization through full term, while some states have enacted limited protection after viability.

Within six months of passage of Alexa’s Law, two pregnant women and their unborn children were murdered in Kansas, and their murderers convicted under this law. Here are the cases known to Kansans for Life that have since utilized Alexa’s Law for charging and convictions:
1. Sedale Fox was convicted of two first-degree murders for shooting his girlfriend to death and the death of their unborn child on Jan. 8, 2008.
2. Andrew Guerrero was convicted for three murders committed on Feb.3, 2008—his ex-wife, her 8-month-old infant and an additional unborn child detected in autopsy.
3. Jason Cott was convicted of two counts of first degree murder for the Jan. 20, 2010 strangulation of his wife and death of their unborn child.

4. Ricardo Barnhart was convicted of two counts of aggravated battery for the beating of his wife and injury to 38-week gestation unborn child on March 19, 2013; mother and child survived.
5. Richard Bennet was charged with 2 counts of attempted murder for the stabbing of his pregnant ex-girlfriend on June 18, 2013. she and the unborn child survived the attack. Bennet was sentenced to parole on lesser charges after the girlfriend later died in a freak accident before his trial.
6. Bryant Seba has been charged with two counts of first degree murder after he shot and killed his pregnant neighbor and unborn child on July 24, 2013.

7. Scott Bollig has been charged with first degree murder for the premeditated murder of his unborn child, Jan. 26, 2014; the mother survived, after being tricked into eating abortion-causing medication.
“Alexa’s Law”—a tool enacted to uphold the value of any human victim of crime– is being utilized to prosecute abortion “by deceit” which was not even envisioned when the law was passed.

Source: NRLC News

Pain of Abortion

 

Tragic: Australian actress commits suicide after years of depression following abortion

By Lauren Enriquez
Charlotte Dawson, a model and TV star who achieved fame in Australia, tragically committed suicide earlier this month after a long battle with depression, which was first triggered by her 1999 abortion experience. Dawson said “it was decided” that she should abort her first child with Olympic swimmer husband Scott Miller because her due date coincided with the 2000 summer Olympics and Miller was so focused on his own pursuits that a child was not welcome in the picture at the time. Dawson says they planned to try to have children later, but the marriage ended shortly thereafter and she ultimately died without living children.
The Telegraph reports:

“In her tell-all autobiography Air Kiss And Tell, she revealed she had an abortion because the pregnancy would interfere with Miller’s preparation for the 2000 Olympics – and blamed that for the start of her long battle with depression.”

According to the Daily Mail:

‘Everything Scott had done was leading up to this moment and nothing could stand in his way, so it was decided that we would terminate the child and try again later. Who needed a developing fetus when a gold medal was on offer, eh?’ The day Charlotte went to have the termination she said she plunged into complete ‘turmoil’. Miller had accompanied her to the hospital, but at the last minute left because he ‘couldn’t cope with the atmosphere’. Distraught, she went through the whole ordeal on her own.

‘I felt a shift,’ she said. ‘Maybe it was hormonal, but I felt the early tinges of what I can now identify as my first experience with depression.’ Dawson was found dead just one day after Miller’s 39th birthday.

Abortion proponents push for easy access to abortion, deemphasizing its after-affects to the point they absolutely refuse to acknowledge post-abortion depression, which further incapacitates those actually living through it.

In fact, a Google search for “post abortion syndrome” first gleans results from the National Abortion Federation claiming that the syndrome is a “myth,” which compounds the tragedy for women who are silently suffering from it. According to Ramah International, Post Abortion Stress Syndrome (PASS) is a form of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (what soldiers returning from combat often experience as they try to reenter civilian society):

“The process of making an abortion choice, experiencing the procedure and living with the grief, pain and regret is certainly, at its very core, traumatic. As with any trauma, individuals often try to ‘forget’ the ordeal and deny or ignore any pain that may result. Many simply don’t relate their distress to the abortion experience. At some point, however, memories resurface and the truth of this loss can no longer be denied. During these moments, the pain of post-abortion syndrome reveals itself in the hearts of millions of lives.”

PASS rears its head in many ways, causing varied symptoms in different women. If you or someone you love is suffering from what may be Post Abortion Stress Syndrome, help is available. Go to http://ramahinternational.org/help_in_your_area.html to find resources by location, or visit the Rachel’s Vineyard website, where you can sign up for a healing retreat in your area, or even speak to an expert about what you’re going through.

Editor’s note. Lauren has worked for great organizations such as Texas Right to Life and Students for Life of America. She is a graduate of Ave Maria University, where she studied Classics and Theology. Her husband and children are the greatest blessings in her life. This appeared at liveactionnews.org.

Source: NRLC News

Obama

 

PPFA’s political arms already flexing muscle to adoring media

By Dave Andrusko

Planned Parenthood is working hard to ensure ObamaCare does not fail.

No pro-lifer doubts the political muscle of Planned Parenthood’s “political entities”– the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and Planned Parenthood Votes. As a key component of the Democratic Party’s “left of center” coalition, they have access to gazillions of dollars and a voice—a large voice—at the table.
But besides the usual self-congratulation and soft-peddle treatment by the mainstream media, what else can we learn from Alexander Burns’ “Planned Parenthood reveals big 2014 game plan,” which ran in Wednesday’s POLITICO?
For starters, they take credit for—and are given credit by Burns for—the election of pro-abortion Terry McAuliffe over pro-life Ken Cuccinelli in last November’s Virginia gubernatorial election. Really? McAuliffe prevailed for a number of reasons which we wrote about here.
Suffice it to say that Democrat McAuliffe won by 56,000 votes out of more than 2 million votes cast, although Republican Cuccinelli was vastly outspent, hindered by a bevy of polls which consistently placed him far behind (thus discouraging contributions and supporters) and hampered by the presence of a third party candidate, and was the personal punching bag of newspapers such as the Washington Post.
Had Cuccinelli carried the day, a lot of the conventional wisdom that still remains would not have dissipated (that will never be permitted by the legion of PPFA allies in the media) but would have diminished.
Part—a large part—of that received wisdom is the power of the “War on Women” mantra. Let’s be clear: when not challenged by the Republican candidate or when bungled by self-same, it can dramatically hurt him or her.

NRLC Executive Director David N. O’Steen, Ph.D., addressed the cost of allowing pro-abortion Democrats to frame the issue. In November 2012, he wrote:

“A determined, one-sided media together with a sequence of most unfortunate statements by candidates created a ‘perfect storm’ that played into and greatly augmented the pro-abortion narrative in this election.  This effectively neutralized the usual pro-life advantage.

“The pro-life movement and pro-life candidates cannot ever let this happen again.  We must see that the issue before the public is how and why abortion is actually used in this country, and, of course, the baby who dies.  If this is done, then with a majority opposed to abortion on demand pro-life political victories will once again be the norm.”

Note, as we posted over the next few months, much of the advantage enjoyed by the pro-life candidate—neutralized in 2012—has returned.
The flipside is that this “War on Women” drivel is a backhanded admission of how chancy it is for pro-abortionists to ever allow the conversation to move to abortion. That is why they pounce on any comment, even those which are entirely innocuous, that they can morph into a bogus example of the candidate’s supposed “misogynistic” views.

The final two paragraphs in Burn’s account is the core of the story and no doubt will be used by PPFA’s political arms to raise even more money:

“At least for the time being, Democrats remain confident that they have the upper hand on any issue that can be placed in the broad category of ‘women’s health’ — and that Planned Parenthood’s investment in the 2014 campaign will be a clear net positive for the party.

“Tom Lopach, chief of staff to Montana Sen. Jon Tester and an adviser to the Democrat’s 2012 reelection campaign, said Planned Parenthood had been a ubiquitous presence in that race, ‘knocking on doors in their pink shirts. They were running their own program, but their volunteers were also active, showing up and making calls for us,’ Lopach said. ‘I think people’s minds often go immediately to abortion services, but in reality Planned Parenthood talks about so much more.’”

This tells us the heart of the strategy: subsume everything that doesn’t walk away under “women’s health,” eviscerate any Republican candidate who doesn’t agree with every component, and make sure, above all else, to send the message that Planned Parenthood is about “so much more” than abortion.

The job of those running against candidates supported by the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and Planned Parenthood Votes is to remind them that the issue is not “family planning,” not “women’s health,” not a “War on Women,” but abortion.

Source: NRLC News

Poienent

 

An unflinchingly honest look at caring for a chronically ill child

By Dave Andrusko
The two items are related but not the same. The first is a story that ran Wednesday on NPR celebrating the latest ‘advance’ in diagnosing our unborn children. “Blood Test Provides More Accurate Prenatal Testing for Down Syndrome” is the headline.
The latter appeared in the New York Times and is an unflinching profile in the courage it requires to aggressively care for a child with a very, very serious medical condition.
There is the almost obligatory “let’s think this over” from Brian Skotko , co-director of the Down Syndrome Program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, whose work we have written about many times. He told NPR’s Rob Stein

“People with Down syndrome are artists. They’re poets. They’re athletes. Their lives are happy ones and fulfilling ones. I have a sister with Down syndrome who certainly is a life coach for not only myself but for my entire family,” says Skotko. ‘If the new tests become a routine offering, then we have to start to ask: Will babies with Down syndrome slowly start to disappear?’”

But that one naysaying voice is the kind of “balance,” alas, you’d expect from NPR. With more and more accurate tests earlier and earlier, it is quite true, as Stein notes, there is less chance of needing further tests that increase the likelihood of a miscarriage. And that is even more so (presumably) from a test that only “requires a blood sample from the mother. New high-speed genetic sequencing is then used to analyze tiny bits of DNA from the baby that float in a woman’s blood when she’s pregnant.”
Stein then quotes Diana Bianchi, a pediatric geneticist at Tufts Medical Center who led the study published in The New England Journal of Medicine:”The blood test is counting sections of DNA, and if there is more DNA than would be expected, it suggests that the baby has an abnormality.”
And, of course, not only is the test more expensive, the test is not perfect.
Michael Greene , an OB-GYN at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who co-authored an editorial accompanying the study, told Stein, “I’m worried that without a proper sense of perspective on the test that women may use a positive screening test as the basis for terminating what would actually have been a normal pregnancy.”

Which for pro-lifers and others who unconditionally support the full humanity of children with anomalies misses the whole point. It’s not just that women will abort even though (it turns out) their child did not have a genetic anomaly. It’s rather that, as Skotko explained, children with Down syndrome are to be treasured for their inherent worth. If their situation is accurately diagnosed with 100% certainty, that does not justify aborting them as some sort of “mistake.” Theirs is not a “wrongful life.”

The other story appeared in the New York Times a few days ago. “The Price of a Child I Wouldn’t Let Go,” by Amanda Rose Adams.

Ms. Adams does not seek our pity or our congratulations for a “job well done.” She is fully cognizant of the tremendous costs caring for her chronically sick son have exacted. But she looks them straight in the eye and understands that this is the price “measured in time, blood and treasure” for the decision she made after learning that her unborn son had serious problems.

“Our son is almost 11, and since the revelation of his critical heart defects during my pregnancy, the cost of his survival increases each year. Yes, I could have terminated my pregnancy or accepted hospice care the morning after his birth. But, I wouldn’t relinquish the child I felt and saw move inside my own body. I couldn’t give up on him just hours after he survived his own precarious birth. So we’ve fought, and that fight has a six-figure price tag.”

By “not giving up on him,” her family made a courageous decision. Ms. Adams does not address what advice she was given when the diagnosis was first made. It’s not hard to believe there was plenty of counsel that life would be “easier for everyone” if she aborted or if the family chose to passively accept his condition once he was born.

Read her essay in its entirety and remember she is writing in a forum where pro-life readers are few and far between. It is all the more heroic because she neither sugarcoats their life nor regrets she chose life for their son. In her last paragraph Adams writes

“Believe I deserve this if you want. Believe me cruel for not aborting my son, or believe me crass for speaking my truth. …Eleven years ago, I made a choice to fight for my child’s life, a choice I do not regret. Though I suffer occasional sticker shock, I willingly accept the price to keep what I hold so dear.”

Source: NRLC News

Abortion Clinics

 

Daily Beast Dreams of Abortion Clinics in Malls, High-Schools

By Katie Yoder
“Safe, legal and RARE everywhere” is the new and improved abortion mantra – or so suggests The Daily Beast’s latest “Women in the World” blog.
Daily Beast Contributor Gabby Bess recently explored “The Architecture of Abortion Clinics” by interviewing architect Lori Brown for “Women in the World.” To introduce Brown’s “new book” (published June 2013), Bess noted that, “abortion clinics are often pushed to the fringes of communities where access is the most crucial” to ask, “But what if they were integrated into the mainstream of our everyday space: clinics in malls, clinics on military bases, clinics on high school campuses, and open access to preventative care?”

Besides authoring “Contested Spaces: Abortion Clinics, Women’s Shelters and Hospitals,” Brown serves as associate professor of architecture at Syracuse University. Brown co-founded Architexx, “a group of women architects of all ages who want to try and change the discipline” – beginning with hosting a “design competition for the [abortion] clinic in Mississippi.”
Apparently, what inspired Brown was a PBS Frontline documentary called “The Last Abortion Clinic,” in which a Mississippi abortionist said, “Women just can’t get to the clinic. They don’t have a car, they can’t afford it, or the timing just doesn’t work.”

Unfortunately for thousands of Mississippi’s African American babies many of the state’s black women reach the clinic just fine. Nearly 72 percent of abortions in Mississippi are black.
Bess began the lengthy discussion by asking Brown, “[Have] you found a way that the architecture of a building can actually minimize harassment from protestors?” After they discussed how to “outsmart the protestors,” Bess asked, “Is it an issue for a lot of women that they just don’t have the resources to find the nearest clinic? Or is it just the literal, physical distance that they would have to travel?” Brown caught her gist and later responded:

“I think it’s so much about location and if, bear with me, I suggest that high schools—I know that in New York and California they can provide contraception and even in some schools in New York City they can provide emergency contraception—but what if abortion was accessible in high schools? What if it was accessible on military bases, where we know sexual assault is very high. What if it was available in malls because you can’t actually protest in a mall because it’s not public space, it’s private space. There are medical-type facilities already in a mall so why not have an abortion clinic in a mall?”

Sounds dreamy. Bess finished off her piece with the final jab: “Is there any architectural answer to having a more visible and accessible clinic?”
Apparently in The Daily Beast’s bizzaro universe
, there aren’t enough abortions because clinics are too well hidden, and women can’t just drop in while they’re window-shopping. But what do you expect from a site that just last week declared Wendy Davis “America’s Conscience on Abortion.”
Editor’s note. This appeared at newsbusters.org.

Source: NRLC News

Assisted Suicide

 

“A Place for Mom” Blog Pushes Assisted Suicide

By Wesley J. Smith
We have all heard the advertisements of A Place for Mom, in which former news star Joan Lunden pitches the business that helps families find assisted living facilities and other senior services.

Well, imagine my surprise to see the organization’s blog gushing over the assisted suicide advocacy group Hemlock Society Compassion and Choices–in a column ostensibly about end of life planning–but which is mostly a column directing family members to help for accessing doctor-prescribed death for the elderly. From the blog entry:

“Upon request, [C & C] Client Support Volunteers are present at the time of death for their clients who elect to self-administer medication. Volunteers ensure that the medical protocol for taking the life-ending medication is followed so that family members can focus on their loved one.”

The blog entry also insists that doctors who don’t want to assist suicides be complicit by providing information and referring to a death doctor:

”Robb [Miller, the Executive Director at Compassion & Choices of Washington] asserts that medical providers, even those opposed to the option of Death with Dignity, have a professional, ethical duty to provide either basic information about Death with Dignity to their terminal patients who make inquiries about the option or refer them to someone who will.”

No they don’t. The law doesn’t so require (although that is coming, I think). Moreover, doctors of an ethical duty to declare their offices “assisted suicide free zones”–at least if they believe in the Hippocratic Oath.

The A Place for Mom blog post pushes readers into the arms of death purveyors, and include an anti-religious tinge:

“Most often, referrals to Compassion & Choices come from medical providers, such as doctors, hospice nurses and social workers who work with terminally ill patients. But, as clinics and hospices fall under the control of religiously-affiliated health care systems, more providers are being prohibited from participating in Death with Dignity.”

“This forces medical providers to essentially abandon the patient in regard to this issue,” he says. “Time is precious at the end of life.” Robb adds, “If people are delayed in getting the information they need, it can have very serious consequences.”

So, one of the premier senior service for-profit enterprises leaps head-first into the culture of death.
And realize, this is aimed primarily at family members. Talk about planting ideas!
I don’t know about you. But my mother is 96. If I ever need help providing services for her the last place I will go is A Place for Mom!
Editor’s note. This appeared at nationalreview.com.

Source: NRLC News

A Heartwarming Story

 

Newborn stuffed in plastic bag, thrown into dumpster but miraculously survives

By Dave Andrusko

Construction worker Carlos Mitchel heard the infant while he was throwing trash out Tuesday morning. He cuddled the newborn boy to warm him up before authorities arrived.
Photo credit: Ricky Ramirez

Every morning, each maintenance worker at the Windmill Lakes Apartment complex in Houston is assigned to pick up trash in a certain area. Tuesday it was Carlos Michel’s turn to clean Building 25.
As he dumped the contents of a bucket into a big dumpster, he heard what “sounded like an animal dying, maybe a kitten, but he couldn’t tell for sure,” Mayra Beltran wrote for the Houston Chronicle.
All Michel knew for sure was that—whatever it was—it was struggling.

“Seconds later, Michel, 51, reached into the blue dumpster and, hunched over, grabbed a white trash bag. He placed the bag on the ground, ripping it open to find the source – a newborn boy, stuffed among trash and discarded school work. His tiny face and hands were purple, his umbilical cord still attached, his body cold. His soft cries were the only indication he was still alive.

“’I almost had a heart attack,’ Michel said.”

The word “miracle” is often casually tossed around. But that the newborn baby did not suffocate after being bundled into a plastic bag and flopped into a dumpster takes “miracle” to another level.
In riveting detail, Beltran explained what happened Tuesday morning.
When Michel heard the baby’s whimpers, Beltran wrote,

“He said he used the bucket as a stool and peered into the dumpster, scanning the pizza boxes, soda bottles and fast-food containers before he identified the bag from which the sounds were coming. As he pulled the bag out, Michel noticed the outline of the baby. The child was upside down.

“As soon as he rescued the boy from the trash bag, Michel took off his gray work shirt and swaddled the newborn in it. The baby’s dark hair was wet and sticky, possibly with placenta, and his body was cold.

“Michel brought the child to his chest, rubbing the baby’s back, trying to use his own body heat to warm the boy.

“A co-worker then came by in pickup, and Michel hopped inside the truck’s cab, turning up the heat to further warm the baby. The newborn’s cheeks turned rosy as his body warmed. Michel said he could see the newborn’s little chest bouncing with hiccups.

“As Michel rocked him, he thought of his own 2-month-old grandson, Gerardo. The baby’s whimpers reminded him of the cries Gerardo sometimes made. But not once did the newborn wail. He just lay still, cradled in Michel’s arms, not ever opening his eyes.”

“At some points, it even seemed as though the newborn was falling asleep. Afraid that the child was too weak, Michel poked him to keep him conscious while they waited for paramedics to arrive.

“’I didn’t want him to die in my arms,’ he said.”

Estella Olguin, a spokeswoman for Child Protection Services, said Michel undoubtedly saved the newborn’s life.
Authorities quickly located the baby’s 16-year-old mother and questioned her. As of yesterday, police had said nothing about her motivations.

“Once she has been released from the hospital, investigators will speak with officials at the Harris County District Attorney’s Office to determine what, if any, charges will be filed,” Beltran wrote.
Texas has a “Baby Moses” law which allows parents to leave infants up to 60 days old and unharmed at a hospital, fire station or ambulance station without fear of prosecution. The law was created in 1999 so that newborns and infants would not be abandoned.
“Really, surrendering your baby to a safe haven site gives your baby a chance,” Olguin told Beltran.

Source: NRLC News

Verily

 

Verily: a women’s magazine with a ‘no Photoshop policy’ that focuses on class and modesty

by Dustin Siggins

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 25, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – For decades, women's magazines have used sex to sell. Whether it's convincing women they need to wear less clothes to beat out the competition, or making themselves more enticing for the sexual desires of men, these magazines have participated in the degradation of American culture.

Verily Magazine aims to change that. Last week, Verily co-founder Kara Eschbach and PR Manager and Contributing Editor Ashley Crouch discussed how their magazine – with its “no Photoshop policy” – offers a different vision of beauty for women.

Left to right: Michelle Easton, president of the Clare Booth Luce Institute; Verily co-founder Kara Eschbach; Verily PR Manager and Contributing Editor Ashley Crouch; and The Heritage Foundation's Angelise Schrader.

 

For an hour, Crouch and Eschbach examined America's and the world's cultural views of beauty among women – what Crouch calls “a cult of cosmetic perfectionism” – with Michelle Easton, president of the Clare Booth Luce Institute and Angelise Schrader, who runs The Heritage Foundation's intern program. The roundtable discussion, part of the longtime Conservative Women's Network Luncheon, was cosponsored by the Clare Booth Luce Institute and The Heritage Foundation.

Crouch explained that the sexualization of women in culture – even internationally – has gone to the point where eight women elected into the Czech Parliament put themselves in sexualized positions for a 2011 pin-up calendar. "Women's political influence is growing. Why not show we are women who aren't afraid of being sexy?" said one of the women who was running for mayor in Prague.
“Of course we want to look our best, and dress well, but then it's always....'We must be desirable in a particular body type,'” said Eschbach. “The most important aspect of our romantic relationship is how much sex that we're having and how satisfying we are in bed. I think that it's an incredibly diminishing view of the way that we view sexuality and relationships.”
“It's also this narrative of being a homemaker is completely unacceptable,” said Eschbach, who worked on Wall Street before co-founding Verily.

One of the panelists pointed out that two famous women who are generally viewed in an attractive light, Kiera Knightley and Kate Winslet, were Photoshopped to be more attractive. In pictures shown during the roundtable, both women saw their breasts enlarged, and Winslet's thighs were “significantly slimmed down” for the cover of GQ.

“This isn't even what people look like,” said Eschbach.
This plays into the policies at Verily. According to Eschbach, even angles are important. “A big thing for us was never showing women in very sexualized positions. ... Even a girl is walking down the street, and [the photographer] is shooting up at her, the first thing you're encountering is her legs, and then all the way up her body, you're not seeing her as a person.”
The “no Photoshop policy” has made waves in fashion circles. Huffington Post published an article that included Verily's statement: "Whereas other magazines artificially alter images in Photoshop to achieve the so-called ideal body type or leave a maximum of three wrinkles, Verily never alters the body or face structure of the Verily models."
During the roundtable, Crouch talked about how the magazine found four non-models for its November/December issue – the last published issue of the magazine, due to costs; Verily just transitioned to an online-only publication – something Huffington Post specifically highlighted when it told readers that “the four stunning models you see below aren't models at all but rather a publicist, a writer, an advertising assistant and a sales associate, respectively.”

“Women want to feel naturally beautiful,” Eschbach stated. “We want [fashion] to be fun. We enjoy that expression of ourselves. We are seeking a lot more balance [at Verily].”
Serious issues “like the rape culture in Egypt” and “porn and the popular imagery of that and what does that really mean for us in society” are also discussed in the magazine, says Eschbach. The magazine has published at least one analysis of pornography in society by Verily's culture editor, Mary Rose Somarriba. At the time of the pornography publication, Somarriba was a Robert Novak Journalism Fellow examining “the connections between sex trafficking and pornography.”

When asked by LifeSiteNews whether the target of over-sexualized imagery is other women – women competing among women – or men for the sexual aspect of relationships, Eschbach said “a lot of the messaging” in magazines is about attracting men, “but ultimately most people want to feel like 'I look my best in whatever it is that I'm choosing to wear, and it communicates what I want to communicate.'”

Crouch said, “When it comes to women's magazines, the standard of what is beautiful is for a man. So, often, women aren't encouraged to be beautiful ... towards their own looks. ... They're often not encouraged to look beautiful in a holistic way. It's often very hypersexual – often with the innuendo, if not explicit, that their beauty is to attract and keep a man.”
When asked about how Verily looks at celebrities, Eschbach said they “shy away” from “putting people on a pedestal.” She pointed to how Emma Watson “had previously ... promoted modesty,” yet subsequently “did a cover shoot in lingerie” for Glamour.
Gabrielle Jackson, a former professional tennis player and entrepreneur with a background in conservative politics and public policy, said that “many of us have been told 'sex sells,' but we all know 'class sells.'” She asked Crouch and Eschbach about coalitions they have been part of. Crouch said they have been approached by “high school girls organizations” and organizations involved with the UN, among others.

While Verily is not a religious magazine, both Crouch and Eschbach are publicly pro-life and pro-family. Crouch is a former intern at the Luce Policy Institute, and was director of outreach and programs for the Love and Fidelity Network. Eschbach is a practicing Catholic who formerly co-hosted a show on a Catholic radio station.
The event was well-attended, with dozens of young adult women and five men.

Source: LifeSite News

Abortion

 

 

U.S., Canada among the world’s top 4% most permissive nations on abortion: Report

by Ben Johnson

WASHINGTON, D.C, February 25, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The United States and Canada's “ultra-permissive abortion policies” make them extreme outliers on the world stage when it comes to abortion, according to a new report from the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Only five other nations, including China and North Korea, are in the same league.
“The United States is one of only seven countries in the world that permit elective abortion past 20 weeks,” wrote Angelina Baglini in “Gestational Limits on Abortion in the United States Compared to International Norms.”

She studied abortion policy in 198 countries, independent states, or semi-autonomous zones with at least one million people. Of these, 139 have laws requiring the women to present a reason to procure an abortion.

More than two-thirds of the nations that allow abortion-on-demand, 36 of the remaining 59 countries, limit abortion at 12 weeks gestation, or the first trimester.
The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision allows abortion for any reason – or no reason – through viability, which was originally set at 28 weeks but reduced to 24 weeks in 1992. The companion case, Doe v. Bolton, offered broad grounds that essentially allowed abortion-on-demand throughout the pregnancy, absent state law.

Seven nations allow elective abortions after 20 weeks: the United States, Canada, China, North Korea, the Netherlands, Singapore, and Vietnam.
The findings amplify the isolation of Canada, which is one of three nations to have no legal restrictions whatsoever on abortion.

Natalie Sonnen, executive director of LifeCanada, said in a press release that “Canada completely ignores pre-natal human life, and runs contrary to science, logic, and international humanitarian standards.”
The report comes as several states and the U.S. Congress are considering limiting abortions to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy on the grounds that unborn babies that age are capable of feeling pain.
Congressman Trent Franks, R-AZ, introduced the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which passed the House last June by a 228-196 vote. Although the bill has been introduced in the Democrat-controlled Senate, there is no expectation that Majority Leader Harry Reid will bring it to the floor for a vote.

Polls have consistently found that women and young people are more likely to favor a 20 week abortion ban.
“Laws restricting abortion on demand after 20 weeks would move the bulk of North America away from the fringe and closer to the international mainstream,” Chuck Donovan, president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, said in a press release.
The report could impact how jurists think about the issue of abortion restrictions.
 
Several Supreme Court justices consider foreign law on par with the U.S. Constitution when determining whether a law is constitutional. The court's swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, cited the laws of other nations to strike down Texas' anti-sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas, abolish the death penalty for minors in Roper v. Simons, and to liberalize criminal sentencing of minors in Graham v. Florida. 

Source: LifeSite News

Media and the Pope

 

s

Vatican’s Cardinal Burke: Media is ‘mocking’ the Pope by creating a liberal caricature

by Hilary White, Rome Correspondent

VATICAN CITY, February 25, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Rumours that Pope Francis intends to change Church teaching on abortion or homosexuality are unfounded media-generated fabrications, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke said in a column this week in the Vatican’s newspaper L’Osservatore Romano.

Cardinal Burke, prefect of the Vatican's Apostolic Signatura, the Church's highest court, writes that during a recent visit to the US he had noticed “a certain questioning” among many Catholics about Pope Francis’ intentions towards the Church’s moral teachings on sexuality and the sanctity of life. So pervasive was the worry that Burke said many “were surprised” when he told them the pope has “affirmed the unchanging and unchangeable truths of the Church’s teaching on these very questions.”

Cardinal Raymond Burke

 

“They had developed a quite different impression as a result of the popular presentation of Pope Francis and his views,” he added.
The cardinal noted Pope Francis’ messages to the Marches for Life in Washington, DC and Rome, and insisted that Francis has strongly “reaffirmed the Church’s perennial teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, as well as the practical importance of the Church’s canonical discipline in seeking the truth regarding the claim of the nullity of a marriage.”
Burke tacitly acknowledged, however, that the Pope’s style has often made Francis difficult for many to understand. “Clearly, the words and actions of the Holy Father require, on our part, a fitting tool of interpretation, if we are to understand correctly what he intends to teach,” he said. But this “tool of interpretation” he adds, can be found in Francis’ actions. Quoting Cardinal Renato Martino, he said that Francis’ ability to teach “through his actions” is the source of his “uniqueness and his magnetism.”
Burke quotes Francis in the interview that shocked and upset many pro-life and pro-family people around the world and even drew implicit criticisms from some bishops:

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. … I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the Church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the Church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”

 
But this quote, Burke said, did not mean that the pope thinks these issues were not important. Pope Francis, he said, wants first “to convey his love of all people so that his teaching on the critical moral questions may be received in that context.”
“In the face of a galloping de-Christianization in the West,” Burke said the pope “wishes to pare back every conceivable obstacle people may have invented to prevent themselves from responding to Jesus Christ’s universal call to holiness.”

“We all know individuals who say things like: ‘Oh, I stopped going to Church because of the Church’s teaching on divorce,’ or ‘I could never be Catholic because of the Church’s teaching on abortion or on homosexuality.’ The Holy Father is asking them to put aside these obstacles and to welcome Christ, without any excuse, into their lives,” the cardinal continued.
“But his approach,” he added, “cannot change the duty of the Church and her shepherds to teach clearly and insistently about the most fundamental moral questions of our time.”

Burke cites Pope Francis’ many comments strongly condemning the abortion movement, particularly in his address to politicians and the Dignitatis Humanae Institute, of which Cardinal Burke is president of the advisory board. At that time, Francis condemned the modern “throwaway culture” that threatens “to become the dominant mentality.”

“The victims of such a culture are precisely the weakest and most fragile human beings — the unborn, the poorest people, sick elderly people, gravely disabled people … who are in danger of being ‘thrown out’, expelled from a machine that must be efficient at all costs,” Pope Francis said.
On other occasions, Francis has called abortion an “abomination” and said it “cries out for vengeance to God.” In 2007, then-Cardinal Bergoglio condemned abortion, even in cases of rape saying: “We aren’t in agreement with the death penalty,” but “in Argentina we have the death penalty. A child conceived by the rape of a mentally ill or retarded woman can be condemned to death.” Bergoglio promoted a special blessing in his archdiocese for mothers and their unborn children.

Burke’s defense of Francis dovetails with his own many previous statements on life and family, most recently in an interview with EWTN when he said unequivocally that “we can never talk enough” about abortion. Cardinal Burke, since his days as bishop of La Crosse, Wisconsin and archbishop of St. Louis, Missouri, has long been regarded by both sides of the culture wars as one of the strongest and most outspoken voices in the Catholic hierarchy in support of the Church’s moral teachings on the family and human life.

In his article, after reassuring Catholics, Burke turned some of his strongest criticisms on the media and others who have perpetrated the Pope Francis mythology. Calling them “persons whose hearts are hardened against the truth,” Cardinal Burke condemned the “false praise” heaped on Francis by the mainstream media for what they have claimed are his intentions to change or “abandon” Church teaching “which our totally secula

Source: LifeSite News

Arazona and Religious Liberty

 

Arizona passes bill protecting freedom of business owners who refuse services to same-sex ‘weddings’

by Catherine Briggs

PHOENIX, AZ, February 25, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a move that has sparked antagonism from both Republicans and Democrats, the Arizona state legislature passed a bill Thursday that would grant business owners the right to refuse service to clients on the basis of religious objections.
SB 1062 would provide business owners the grounds to deny their services to same-sex “marriages.”

The bill, which now awaits the signature of Gov. Jan Brewer, has been lambasted as discriminatory by its opponents, but its defenders say it’s a necessary protection for religious freedom.
In the past few years, there have been several cases of business owners facing lawsuits after refusing to provide their services to gay couples at their “weddings.” This bill would prevent such suits from being filed in Arizona and would protect objecting business owners from facing heavy fines.
This bill has a lion’s share of opponents.

Both of Arizona’s federal senators, each Republican, have urged Gov. Brewer to veto SB 1062.  Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake conveyed their opposition via Twitter on Monday.  Of the nine Arizona members of the United States House of Representatives, all four Democrats have spoken out in opposition to the bill.  One Republican representative has refused to comment while the other four have not yet commented.

Daniel Mach, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s religion and belief program, said, “Religious freedom is a fundamental right, but it’s not a blank check to harm others or impose our faith on our neighbors.”  The ACLU opposes the legislation.
In a column written for The Daily Beast, Kirsten Powers and Jonathon Merritt argued that if Christians have the right to deny services for gay “marriages” on a biblical basis, they should also refuse their services to other “unbiblical” ceremonies, such as those involving divorced couples.
“If you refuse to photograph one unbiblical wedding,” the columnists write, “you should refuse to photograph them all. If not, you'll be seen as a hypocrite and as a known Christian, heap shame on the Gospel. As all Christians know, Jesus saved his harshest words for the hypocritical behavior of religious people. So, if Christian wedding vendors want to live by a law the Bible does not prescribe, they must at least be consistent.”
 
In a response to this article, Southern Baptist ethicist Russell D. Moore pointed out the stark difference between heterosexual and homosexual unions. He states, “In the case of a same-sex marriage, the marriage is obviously wrong, in every case. There are no circumstances in which a man and a man or a woman and a woman can be morally involved in a sexual union."
This response followed a February 20 podcast in which Moore spelled out the distinction between unlawful heterosexual marriages and homosexual “marriages,” effectively debunking Powers and Merritt’s accusation of hypocrisy.

"While a biblical view of marriage would see that such people (fornicators, believers to unbelievers, unlawfully divorced, etc.) should not get married, and that the church has no authority to marry them, we also would affirm that such people, when married, actually are married. A pastor who joins a believer to an unbeliever bears an awful responsibility for doing something wrong, but the end result is an actual marriage.

"The same-sex marriage differs not in terms of morality, but in terms of reality. It is not that homosexuality is some sort of wholly different or unforgivable sexual sin. It's that the historic Christian view of marriage means that without sexual complementarity there is no marriage at all."
The reaction to SB 1062 from the media has been heated to say the least.  In an interview with CNN news anchor Chris Cuomo, Kelly Fiedorek, attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom, tried explaining the bill and how it would protect religious freedom.

“[There’s] a basic difference,” Ms. Fiedoreck says, “between denying someone a cup of coffee or a piece of pizza or selling someone a pencil versus forcing someone to use their creative ability to create a message to support an event, to support an idea that goes against their beliefs.”
“For example,” she continued, “we would not force a Muslim to participate in a Koran-burning ceremony. We wouldn’t ask a black photographer and force them to go take a picture of a KKK event. This is America and in America we should be able to live freely and not be forced to endorse ideas.”
Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, responded to the fiery reaction to the passing of SB 1062 in a statement on Saturday.
“The attacks on SB 1062,” Herrod states, “show politics at its absolute worse. They represent precisely why so many people are sick of the modern political debate. Instead of having an honest discussion about the true meaning of religious liberty, opponents of the bill have hijacked this discussion through lies, personal attacks, and irresponsible reporting.”
“I urge Governor Brewer,” she continues, “to send a clear message to the country that in Arizona, everyone, regardless of their faith, will be protected in Arizona by signing SB 1062."
The bill is expected to be signed or vetoed by Gov. Brewer this week.  Ms. Brewer vetoed a similar bill last year during a self-imposed freeze on signing legislation until a budget was passed for the 2014 fiscal year.

Source: LifeSite News

Another House of Horror

Michigan’s “House of Horrors” abortionist discovered managing taxpayer funded medical clinic

by Rachael Denhollander

Some evil just refuses to go away.  Like “Doctor” Robert Alexander, who ran Michigan’s very own “House of Horrors” abortion clinic, complete with blood-spattered walls, garbage strewn near unsterilized medical equipment, and string of women suffering botched abortions and serious injury.
The clinic was shut-down after inspections revealed the unsafe and unsanitary practices of the doctor and his facility, but Alexander’s medical license was never actually revoked, and he retained the ability to practice “medicine.”  A status which allowed him to be hired as the managing physician of a taxpayer-funding STD clinic in Detroit, MI, despite the allegations surrounding his competency as a physician, and despite his criminal record illegally selling prescriptions.  The Detroit Sexually Transmitted Disease Clinic, which Alexander was recently discovered to be managing, is operated by an agency called “Institute for Population Health,” but the non-profit is actually funded by taxpayer dollars, and also functions as Detroit’s public health department.


Alexander’s employment there was recently disclosed by a local news channel who caught up with the doctor as he exited the clinic, and tried to interview him, without success.  The disgraced abortionist is facing new charges related to the conditions of his Muskegon clinic, and it has now also been revealed that the failure to revoke his medical license was likely due to the fact that the examiner reviewing the complaint against him had a significant conflict of interest – he was a former friend and colleague who had previously helped Alexander recover his medical license after he served jail time for the illegal sale of prescription drugs.  According to the report, examiner Dr. George Shade reviewed complaints filed against Alexander by an OB-GYN who oversaw the care of two of women Alexander had performed botched abortions on.  Shade reviewed the testimony of the OB-GYN, then promptly dismissed the reports, ordering that they not be investigated any further.
As a result of this revelation, the Michigan Senate has passed a measure requiring that conflicts of interest be disclosed by members of the medical review board, and also requiring that three physicians review complaints, rather than only one.  However, Alexander’s case appears to have been ignored and mishandled on many levels.

The former office manager for Alexander’s clinic has repeatedly complained that no one from the State even once interviewed her as part of the “investigation” against Alexander, despite the fact it was she who filed initial complaints with MI Right to Life, six months before the clinic was ultimately shut-down, and has been outspoken about the numerous violations she witnessed, and personally participated in.  Yet despite the fact that she has arguably the most working knowledge of what took place inside that Michigan clinic, investigators have entirely avoided any contact with her.
As for the clinic Alexander was hired to run, the spokesperson for the non-profit in charge of hiring the physician claims they were unaware of any of the controversy surrounding the doctor or his former clinic until someone sent them photos and information related to the initial investigation.  Clearly, however, it did not disturb the group enough to fire the man, Alexander resigned himself immediately after Wood TV 8 blew the whistle on his current employment.  He will face new charges of incompetence and negligence related to his actions in the Muskegon clinic.

Source: LiveAction News

Social Media

Online for Life: 101 — How OFL is changing the pro-life landscape and helping save lives

by OnlineforLife.org

Perhaps you’ve been curious about how Online for Life is able to cooperatively help rescue so many unborn babies and their families from abortion. We understand that the way in which we carry out our mission has some moving parts, so we decided to shed a little light on who we are and what we do at Online for Life.

In the four years since we founded Online for Life, we’ve discovered that each month in America, there are more than 2 MILLION Internet searches for the words such as abortion or abortion clinic. That’s approximately 70,000 Internet searches every day! What this tells us is that the majority of women facing crisis pregnancies are turning to the Internet first—an anonymous place where they can look for answers, their secrets are kept safe, and no one else has to know.

In order to turn hearts and minds toward LIFE, we knew we had to reach these women while they’re searching the Internet . . . and before they make contact with an abortion clinic. We know there is no time to waste because within the first 24 hours of discovering their crisis pregnancy, the majority of abortion-determined women and men will decide whether or not they choose LIFE for their unborn child (Guttmacher Institute, Reasons for Abortion and Timing of Abortion Studies, 2006).

Assisted by best-in-class analysis and tools, Online for Life implements cutting-edge Internet technology, as well as supplemental traditional marketing tools (billboards, print ads, etc.), to connect with abortion-minded women and men. From there we guide them to make an appointment at one of the approximately 50 participating pro-life pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) across 23 states, where they’ll receive life-affirming compassion, care, and an ultrasound of their unborn children.
And when a distressed woman calls the number on her computer screen, she will speak with a compassionate and caring person who can also schedule an appointment for her at her local PRC.
But our support doesn’t end there. After an appointment is scheduled, our Call Center takes it a step further by following up with each client, providing her with reminders of her appointment, and answering any questions she may have (with the exception of any medical information or advice).
Incredibly, every stage of this process is covered in prayer, thanks to the innovative Online for Life Prayer App. The moment a woman contacts one of the participating PRCs or our in-house Call Center, app users receive a notification to pray for her. This initial notification is then followed up with regular reminders to continue praying that the client keeps her appointment and ultimately chooses LIFE.
With real-time notifications and prayer reminders, this innovative app allows you to pray for each woman (who remains anonymous) throughout her decision-making process

This app is now available on ProLifeApp.com/download.

Whether it’s interceding through prayer for a woman who’s phoned a PRC, or praying during and after the scheduled appointment, Online for Life is leaning on the power of prayer from our faith-based community to help soften the hearts and minds of abortion-determined individuals.
To personalize this tutorial a little bit, I want to share a story . . . one that we’ve posted on Facebook and Twitter. It’s the story of Baby #1,100.
Online for Life connected with the birth mother (let’s call her “Ann”) online, and we directed her to a local pregnancy resource center (PRC). During her appointment, Ann discussed her options with the caring staff, received life-affirming guidance, and saw an ultrasound image of her baby. Yet when Ann left the PRC that day, she was still determined to have an abortion.
After months of unanswered phone calls, the PRC staff tried one more time to reach Ann. This time she picked up the phone, and she shared that her baby had been born just days earlier. After thinking about what the supportive staff at the PRC had told her, she said she just couldn’t abort her baby.

Oftentimes women leave their PRC appointments still feeling undecided about their pregnancies. And some women, like Ann, feel just as determined to get an abortion as they did when they first arrived.
That’s why the OFL Call Center and the participating PRCs are committed to follow up with women after their appointments—to remind them that not only are people praying for them, but also Online for Life’s participating PRCs have a number of resources they’d like to share with these women if they should ever need extra help. To extend support to these parents beyond the birth of their children, many PRCs offer financial assistance and planning classes for birth mothers. And knowing that not every outcome will be a positive one like Ann’s, post-abortive care is made available to mothers who do not choose LIFE.

Online for Life invites you to get involved. Right now you can begin praying for women like Ann who are entering their local PRCs seeking answers. Download the Online for Life Prayer App today and join thousands of individuals who are standing on the front lines as our praying community.

Through the Prayer App, you’ll be reminded to continue praying as participating PRC’s follow up with each client after her appointment at a PRC. And when a woman chooses LIFE for her child, you’ll be notified and asked to share the good news with your friends and family . . . an announcement that will excite others and encourage them to join you in prayer!

From the first Internet impression on a person’s computer . . . to the phone call she makes to her local PRC . . . to the appointment at the PRC . . . to the moment she chooses LIFE . . . and beyond . . . Online for Life is there every step of the way.

Source: LiveAction News

Assisted Suicide Sad Story

 

Swiss Clinic Suicide over Lost Beauty

By Wesley J. Smith
There is no limit to the death culture any more. An elderly Italian woman paid Dignitas 10,000 Euros to be made dead because she had lost her looks and was lonely. From the Daily Mail story:

“A healthy Italian woman paid a Swiss right-to-die clinic to take her life because she was ‘unhappy about losing her looks.’ Oriella Cazzanello, 85, travelled to a clinic in Basel, Switzerland, where she paid €10,000 for an assisted suicide.

“The elderly woman, who was in good mental and physical health, disappeared from her home in Arzignano, near Vicenza in northern Italy, without telling her relatives where she was going.

“Her family, who had reported her to the police as missing, only learnt of her death after they received her ashes and death certificate from the clinic.”

That last bit says it all.
Euthanasia/assisted suicide is an abyss with no bottom.

Source: NRLC News

Fetal Development

 

Why the human zygote is an organism (and why it matters)

By Paul Stark
In the public debate over embryo-destructive biomedical research, many people dismiss the claim that the human zygote and blastocyst/young embryo (early stages of human prenatal development just following conception) are human beings on the grounds that other cells and tissues—such as a patch of skin cells, or the sperm and egg—are also living and human, yet no one supposes that they are themselves human beings. But these critics are not well-informed of the biological facts. The crucial difference is that zygotes and embryos are organisms, and skin cells, sperm and egg are not. The zygote/embryo is a whole distinct human organism—that is, a human being, a self-developing member of the species Homo sapiens—at a very early stage of life. Other cells are mere parts of larger wholes, not individual organisms themselves.

But the term “organism” requires explanation. Dr. Maureen L. Condic, a Berkeley-educated neurobiologist and professor at the University of Utah School of Medicine, where she teaches human embryology, explains:

An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.” This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism.

Based on this definition, it has been proposed that human beings (including embryonic human beings) can be reliably distinguished from human cells using the same kinds of criteria scientists employ to distinguish different cell types: by examining their composition and their pattern of behavior. A human being (i.e., a human organism) is composed of characteristic human parts (cells, proteins, RNA, DNA), yet it is different from a mere collection of cells because it has the characteristic behavior of an organism: it acts in an interdependent and coordinated manner to “carry on the activities of life.” In contrast, collections of human cells are alive and carry on the activities of cellular life, yet fail to exhibit coordinated interactions directed towards any higher level of organization. Collections of cells do not establish the complex, interrelated cellular structures (tissues, organs, and organ systems) that exist in a whole, living human being. Similarly, a human corpse is not a living human organism, despite the presence of living human cells within the corpse, precisely because this collection of human cells no longer functions as an integrated unit.

So is the zygote an organism? Condic continues:

From the moment of sperm-egg fusion, a human zygote acts as a complete whole, with all the parts of the zygote interacting in an orchestrated fashion to generate the structures and relationships required for the zygote to continue developing towards its mature state. Everything the sperm and egg do prior to their fusion is uniquely ordered towards promoting the binding of these two cells. Everything the zygote does from the point of sperm-egg fusion onward is uniquely ordered to prevent further binding of sperm and to promote the preservation and development of the zygote itself. The zygote acts immediately and decisively to initiate a program of development that will, if uninterrupted by accident, disease, or external intervention, proceed seamlessly through formation of the genitive body, birth, childhood, adolescence, maturity, and aging, ending with death. This coordinated behavior is the very hallmark of an organism.

Mere human cells, in contrast, are composed of human DNA and other human molecules, but they show no global organization beyond that intrinsic to cells in isolation. A human skin cell removed from a mature body and maintained in the laboratory will continue to live and will divide many times to produce a large mass of cells, but it will not re-establish the whole organism from which it was removed; it will not regenerate an entire human body in culture. Although embryogenesis begins with a single-cell zygote, the complex, integrated process of embryogenesis is the activity of an organism, not the activity of a cell.

Based on a scientific description of fertilization, fusion of sperm and egg in the “moment of conception” generates a new human cell, the zygote, with composition and behavior distinct from that of either gamete. Moreover, this cell is not merely a unique human cell, but a cell with all the properties of a fully complete (albeit immature) human organism; it is “an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.”

Condic concludes:

[T]he embryo comes into existence at sperm-egg fusion … a human organism is fully present from the beginning, controlling and directing all of the developmental events that occur throughout life. This view of the embryo is objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other, and it is consistent with the factual evidence. It is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical questions surrounding the embryo: What value ought society to place on human life at the earliest stages of development? Does the human embryo possess the same right to life as do human beings at later developmental stages? A neutral examination of the factual evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the zygote stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species—human beings.

Science, then, tells us what the embryo is: an individual human organism, a human being, at the embryonic stage of life. It cannot tell us how the embryo ought to be treated, which is a moral (rather than scientific) question.

But if it is true (as pro-life advocates argue) that human beings as such have intrinsic moral value—that there is a fundamental equality among all members of our species, irrespective of size, age, ability and condition of dependency—then we may not destroy embryonic human beings for their stem cells any more than we may kill and harvest the useful parts of a 10-year-old child for the benefit of others.

Editor’s note. Paul Stark is Communications Assistant for Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, NRLC’s state affiliate. This appears at prolifemn.blogspot.com

Source: NRLC News