Lake County Right to Life Blog

Foloww Up to Criteria for Endorsing a Candidate - A House Divided

2012-01-26T17:28:00.003-06:00

At the risk of getting myself in more trouble than I did with my previous post on this subject, I am going to stick my neck out a bit more with today's observations. These matters are obviously highly charged with emotions, and at the risk of igniting those emotions a bit more, I will take a Michael Voris approach in today's remarks.

As I seem to have stepped on a few toes by defending Lake County Life PAC's decisions in some of their endorsements of candidates, who did not hold a "100%" pro-life viewpoint, I may step on a few more with what I say next. Though my intent is not to step on anyone, but merely to point out that this is a much more complicated issue here ... and challenge people to think a bit more on just exactly WHY pro-lifers are so divided.

It appears to those pro-lifers, who will describe themselves as being 100%,   that those they see as being less than 100%, are the crux of the problem. Those others, though they also see themselves as being 100% pro-life, nevertheless, see the pro-life mission as a "spiritual battle, fought in a political arena which necessitates full understanding of the rules of engagement in that political arena."

This division amongst pro-lifers has been going on for many years now, while babies continue to die. Why? Since the infamous decision of Roe v Wade in 1973, groups of Lay people decided to get together to fight against this decision. Why was it that Lay people felt they needed to do this? Where was the Church?

As a young Catholic couple, my husband and I, who regularly attended daily mass, never heard a peep from the pulpit. We even heard that priests were telling women to "follow their own conscience" concerning birth control pills. My husband and myself believed for many years, that we were going to be the only Catholics left on the planet. Coming from the Hippie generation, you can imagine, we were certainly not very popular amongst our peers. But, more distressing, was the attitude of many priests, who also made us feel as though we were dinosaurs from the past.

One day, in particular, we asked one of the priests from our parish, Santa Maria in Mundelein, "why do we never hear anything from you priests about the evil of abortion that is scouring our land?" His reply? "Well", he blithely responded, "Perhaps it's just not a burning issue with other people, as it is with you." Burning issue?   "Well, it will be a burning issue when they're in hell!", I angrily retorted! The priest had nothing more to say, and I walked away so disheartened and confused. This attitude on the part of the clergy only continued during our 5 children's growing and formative years, to the point where we ended up homeschooling our youngest child.

Where was that Voice of Authority, I had grown up with, which morally guided and led Catholics in every area of their lives? It seemed that the Flower Power & Free Love Age of Aquarius had infiltrated the Catholic Church, with priests wearing butterfly vestments, and becoming Johnny Carsons as they faced the people at the liturgy of the mass, trying to be hip and relevant. I'm getting nauseous just recalling this nonsense ... which has yet to breathe it's last gasp.

This all reached critical mass with the priest scandal, wherein the full effects of disobedient clergy, to Humanae Vitae, became fully evident, and we soon understood why priests were too busy to lead their sheep.

So, back to my main question in this blog ... "Why are pro-lifers divided"? Is it really because some of them are more pro-life than others? Why are they so divided on how to elect pro-life candidates? Is it really because some of them are less pro-life than others?

In any family, institution or army, there must be "LEADERSHIP"! In the absence of leadership, the troops will become confused and disoriented and fight amongst themselves. Many will be lost or desert, or fall into the hands of the enemy. In the absence of said leadership in the Church, lay people have been on their own, trying to decide moral questions amongst themselves, oft times arguing amongst themselves over those questions. This absence of leadership has especially led to confusion and division amongst pro-lifers. In any questionable situation, there needs to be a "voice of authority", which ultimately arbitrates and settles the argument. If that voice of authority is lacking, nothing but division will follow.

"And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand." Mark 3:25

It's a Girl! Documentary Film - Official Trailer

2012-01-26T08:50:00.000-06:00

Fr. Pavone permitted to attend March for Life: Interview on latest developments

2012-01-26T08:30:00.002-06:00

Planned Parenthood At It Again

2012-01-26T08:25:00.000-06:00

Planned Parenthood Takes Credit for ObamaCare

In their recently released 2009-2010 annual report, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) claimed credit for helping to "shape and pass" the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act-Obama Care. Pointing to this monstrosity as "a pivotal achievement," PPFA describes Obama Care as "a promising new era of health care."

A new era, yes-but many pro-life activists and religious leaders would characterize it differently. It promises an end to conscience rights for Christian employers and health care providers and the beginning of an outpouring of government abortion funding. Indeed, even though President Obama's executive order was supposed to protect conscience rights and prevent government abortion funding, it has not worked out that way. (See statement released by the National Right to Life for more details:

http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCToHouseOnHealthBill.pdf.)

As one commentator noted, "Health care exemptions were granted to McDonald's and numerous businesses within Nancy Pelosi's district, but the Obama administration won't extend conscience exemptions regarding abortifacient contraceptives for religious healthcare workers." And don't forget that during the 2011 budget fight, President Obama warned that he would shut down the U.S. government before letting House Speaker John Boehner present any budget that tried to cut off federal funds to Planned Parenthood. It seems ludicrous, then, that supporters of Obama Care continue to deny that it allows for government funding for abortion.

Consider the extent of government subsidies revealed in Planned Parenthood's annual report: Planned Parenthood reported over $1 billion in total net assets, and nearly half of this had come from the government. PPFA received $487.4 million from the government in 2010, a whopping 34% increase over the previous year. As Jeannie DeAngelis stated in the American Thinker, "In 2010, that is equivalent to 308,745,538 American citizens contributing $1.58 apiece to subsidize the running of a left-wing slaughterhouse." (Though PPFA claims that abortion represents only 3% of their business, based on their average charges, abortions accounted for more than half of their income. In 2010, the ratio was 1 adoption referral for every 391 abortions.)

During a time of huge government debt, it makes little sense that the federal government would increase its funding of Planned Parenthood by over $124 million. This is particularly true in light of the following:

A 2011 Gallup poll showing that a majority of Americans believe abortion is morally wrong.
PPFA's support from private sources eroding during the same one-year period, decreasing by 37.7%.
Approximately 30 executives of PPFA earning salaries lucrative enough to place them in the top 1%.

Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser stated that "Despite an unprecedented effort by statewide and federal leaders to defund them, a wave of former employees willing to testify against them, and uniform agreement amongst Republican presidential candidates that they should be defunded, Planned Parenthood continues full-steam ahead. They are unwilling to answer to the pro-life American majority that wants out of this business."

Gardasil Victims

2012-01-24T13:19:00.002-06:00

March For Life

2012-01-24T08:58:00.000-06:00

2012-01-23T23:18:00.002-06:00

Radical Catholic in Name Only Tilted the Catholic Vote for Obama with Soros and Progressive Insurane Company Money

Michael Voris and his research crew have done a stellar job exposing so called "Catholic" social justice
useful idiots to get the Catholic vote for Obama. All the awhile with no help from the hierarchy to help expose
these pernicious rats. God help the hierarchy: in Jesus words, "Will there be no one of faith when I return?"
This Voris video is long, but the players need to be known. This Republic is at stake by the willfull desire of Obama and his henchmen to destroy this Nation under God., using the Catholic Church as their weapon.

Schrizophenic Women Forced to Be Aborted and Sterilized!

2012-01-21T14:29:00.000-06:00

Ok, this one is personal! A 32 yr. old woman, whom we will name Jane Doe, and who was diagnosed with schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder and found to be pregnant, was ordered by a Massachusetts Judge to have an abortion, and afterwards be sterilized. Judge Christina Harms, a Harvard Law School graduate and a former lawyer in the State's welfare services, issued the order for an abortion and subsequent sterilization, to put an end to "these distressing pregnancies", reasoning that, "the woman was not competent to make a decision about an abortion, because of her "substantial delusional beliefs" (which by the way are Catholic)" Jane Doe, insisting that she was a devout Catholic, did not want the abortion, and subsequently gave birth to a son, whom her parents are caring for.

I have a very personal interest in this one, as the child of a schizophrenic mother myself. The eldest daughter of 5 children, I and my 4 siblings, without a doubt, suffered in more ways than one, as a result of our mother's illness. Yet, though I have my scars, today I am a happy wife, mother and grandmother who really relishes LIFE and all that goes along with it. I would never believe, that in spite of all the obstacles that were placed in my way, due to my mother's illness, that I should have never been born! And I know that my siblings, in spite of all their own struggles, would have to agree with me.

I firmly believe, based on my own personal experience, that there is no child born, no matter how desperate their circumstances, that God does not bless with the gifts and grace to overcome those circumstances. Today's thinking, which comes down to us from Margaret Sanger, is that only college educated, financially secure and biologically perfect human specimens, should be allowed to reproduce themselves. Well let me tell you something about that .... I have witnessed just as many persons, born from (so called) stable homes with college educated, financially secure, biologically perfect parents who grow up to be wastrels, selfish narcissists and suffer just as much psychological and substance abuse problems, as I have from those persons born from lacking homes and parents.

SO ...Should my schizophrenic mother have been sterilized, so that I and my siblings should have never been born? Well, let me tell you something about my mother. She had an illness ... yes ... BUT ... that was not all she was! She was not just a schizophrenic ... she was an intelligent and very gifted woman who possessed notable artistic and writing talents ... which she passed on to me ... on down to my own granddaughter. There were so many other aspects to her person besides an illness! She was a viable human being, who struggled against an insidious illness, to have all the fulfillments of life that every human being yearns for ... such as a family of her own. Should she have been denied these rights, and neutered like a dog, just because she had an illness? Was that the only answer to hers and her children's suffering?

Regarding Jane Doe, the state appeals court said, "The case of whether to bear or beget a child, is a right so fundamental that it must be extended to all persons, including those who may be incompetent."

My own granddaughter Gracie, was actually born on my mother's birthday ... inheriting all the creative and artistic abilities of her great-grandmother before her. Had my mother been sterilized because of her illness, all those beautiful gifts would have been lost, and little Gracie, born with the same strawberry blonde hair and creativity of her great grandmother before her, would never be.

Are only those people born to so called "normal" parents, viable? Is my mother's life, or my life less valuable because of our suffering? As time has gone by and I have looked at others who came from more comfortable and nurturing childhoods ... do I regret my birth? Well ... even though there may be times that I feel a certain sadness over not coming from a more happy childhood, I still treasure my own life ... who I am ... and what I've become ... in spite of ... and I thank God everyday for the great gift of my own life ... my mother's life before me .... and my little granddaughter's life, who takes after her.

Proud to Be Pro Life

2012-01-21T13:45:00.001-06:00

2012-01-20T18:18:00.000-06:00

Conscience Clause? "NOT"

The hierarchy has only themselves to blame. They ignored abortion long after it was imprinted on 2 generations of children. They raised our children to be illiterate of their Faith, and condoned homosexuality in their ranks, and they condoned universal health care. Almost all so called Catholic democrats are neo-pagans who should have been excommunicated long ago. Now that the Obama Administration has made their decision, I wonder which Catholic institutions will soon invite Obama to hear him speak his lies, after all so many in the hierarchy
and college campuses have served as "useful idiots" to the socialist Utopians that are running/ruining our country.

Criteria for Endorsement of a Pro-Life Candidate

2012-01-19T20:17:00.001-06:00

There is an old saying I remember from my childhood: "Politics makes strange bed-fellows". I heard my parents make this statement many times, and of course as a child I never really fully understood it. Until I grew up, at which time I came to understand that not everything in this world is clearly black and white, and that some times it's all about winning ground - verses falling on your sword over a point of argument.

Working in the pro-life movement, as well as learning about all the political strategies that go along with that, I am reminded of a story in the Bible about the crafty steward. It comes from Luke 16, where, being accused of the mishandling of his stewardship, a man is called by his master to give an account of himself. After summing up his situation, the crafty steward decides, that if he is relieved of his stewardship and thrown out into the street, he is going to have to take measures to ensure security for himself - since - as he says to himself - he cannot dig ditches. And so, the story goes, that the shrewd steward calls together some of his master's debtors, and one by one has them write down a lesser amount of what they owe. In this way, the clever steward figures he will have made a few friends, who, will welcome him into their homes, after he is cast out in the street.

The clincher to this story comes, when the master finds out what this wretched steward has done, instead of putting his head on a chopping block, he praises the rascal, as we read in Luke 16:8 "The master praised the dishonest steward for his astuteness. For the children of this world are more astute in dealing with their own kind than are the children of light."

As a child, this story always shocked me ... especially as it was a story told by Jesus to His disciples, where it seemed Jesus was praising disreputable and deceitful behavior. To this very day, one has to really read this story carefully and prayerfully to really understand what Jesus is telling us. And more recently, I was reminded of this biblical tale, as I witnessed certain disagreements among pro-lifers regarding Lake County Life PAC's endorsement of certain candidates over others.

The controversy arose over the PAC's endorsement of certain candidate's who were pro-life, but with a rape/incest exception, over another candidate who was pro-life no matter what the situation ... or as they would say: "a 100% pro-life candidate". I watched and listened very carefully at Lake County Right to Life's Candidate Forum, as each candidate got up and spoke their views on the life issues. I was struck by several of the candidates, for varying reasons ... and some of those candidate's who struck me were not all necessarily 100%.

The ultimate choice to endorse one candidate over another was based on 3 criteria: 1.) their position on the Life issues. 2.) their track record on the life issues, voting etc. and 3.) their viability as a candidate who could secure a victory against the 100% pro-abort opponent.   This 3rd criteria is what prompted the source of conflict over the ultimate choice which was made by the PAC. For some pro-lifers felt that it was more important to endorse the candidate who expressed a more 100% pro-life position, rather than another candidate who was pro-life, but with an exception, such as rape/incest.

Now, as it turned out, the candidate whom Lake County Life PAC endorsed, though they held the one exception to their pro-life position, nevertheless met the 3rd criteria of viability as a candidate. But, this did not set very well with the conscience of some pro-lifers, who felt it was a sell out against the principles of the pro-life cause.

Politics is not religion ... nor is it about being a faithful steward as in a religion ... but more about being an astute steward ... who knows how to win the ultimate battle against his opponent. If we choose the candidate with the halo on his head, who is 100% ... but who shows no chance of knocking out the opponent with the horns on his head, who is 100% against all that we stand for ... what have we gained?

Again, Jesus tells His apostles in Matthew 10:16 "Remember I am sending you out as sheep among wolves; so be cunning as serpents and yet harmless as doves." This paradox of trying to balance between being harmless as doves, yet cunning as serpents, is what as sheep among wolves, we must master in our dealings with the children of this world, who are "far more astute than the children of light", in Christ's own words.

Our pro-choice opponents, being far more cunning, shrewd and astute than we on the pro-life side, have basically been kicking our proverbial but for the past 38 years! Why?   Is Jesus asking us to be dishonest? Is He asking us to lower ourselves to the level of the children of this world? Of course not. But, as the children of this world are so dang astute and cunning, Jesus is telling us to use our wits for cryin out loud! We can't be so naive or presumptuous in thinking that just because we are on the side of right, we cannot help but win. Every army needs a strategy to out-think and out maneuver his opponent.

One should not feel that endorsing a candidate with a rape/incest exception is a compromise of one's values, or a betrayal of the pro-life cause. Babies are dying, while we scrupulize over the perfection of a candidate, who, though he may not be able to make the touch down, can certainly gain us more yard lines, getting us closer to our ultimate goal. In a chess game, if the knight can't make the move, move the pawn. And that's what it's all about.

Planned Parenthood Is At It Again

2012-01-12T08:37:00.000-06:00

Planned Parenthood Takes Credit for ObamaCare

In their recently released 2009-2010 annual report, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) claimed credit for helping to "shape and pass" the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act-ObamaCare. Pointing to this monstrosity as "a pivotal achievement," PPFA describes ObamaCare as "a promising new era of health care."

http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCToHouseOnHealthBill.pdf.)

As one commentator noted, "Health care exemptions were granted to McDonald's and numerous businesses within Nancy Pelosi's district, but the Obama administration won't extend conscience exemptions regarding abortifacient contraceptives for religious healthcare workers." And don't forget that during the 2011 budget fight, President Obama warned that he would shut down the U.S. government before letting House Speaker John Boehner present any budget that tried to cut off federal funds to Planned Parenthood. It seems ludicrous, then, that supporters of ObamaCare continue to deny that it allows for government funding for abortion.

A 2011 Gallup poll showing that a majority of Americans believe abortion is morally wrong.
PPFA's support from private sources eroding during the same one-year period, decreasing by 37.7%.
Approximately 30 executives of PPFA earning salaries lucrative enough to place them in the top 1%.

Why Attend A Candidate Forum

2012-01-06T09:05:00.000-06:00

Why Attend a Candidate Forum?

We are frequently reminded that every election is important. Having the right to vote brings with it the responsibility to use our voice. But in order to be sure you are voting well, you need to know where the candidates stand on the issues.

Every election really is important

Why? Because every election impacts the cause of life.

At every level of government, and in almost every office, there will be some policies and decisions affecting pro-life issues. It may be Supreme Court appointments by the President, or a parental notification law at the state level, or zoning for an abortion clinic on a local level.
At the federal, state and local levels, there are people advocating for laws and policies diametrically opposed to the pro-life worldview, and they want you to pay for it.

The 2012 election is the most crucial to the cause of life in decades

Why? Because since the last election, a line has been crossed.

For years, the Hyde Amendment prevented the federal government from paying for abortions. Despite President Obama's assurances and his executive order, under ObamaCare, abortion will be paid for by our tax dollars. The federal government has decided that new health plans must cover abortion-causing drugs, violating previously promised conscience protections. If ObamaCare is allowed to be fully implemented, it will be far more difficult to repeal.
Decisions from the department of Health and Human Services have become radically pro-abortion, even in areas not connected to health care. For instance, faith-based organizations that have for years provided the majority of the programs fighting human trafficking (modern-day slavery) will now be excluded from working with HHS. It is clear that rescuing human trafficking victims is less important than ideology to the Obama administration.
At the state level, the Illinois political machine perennially battles against the cause of life. Last year, through political trickery, the ultrasound bill never made it to committee. With your pro-life vote, we intend to see it passed this year.
Locally, there are efforts underway to open a school-based clinic, which would give Planned Parenthood a foothold in our community.

The candidate forum will benefit you

Why? Because to be a competent voter, you need to be an informed voter.

This Says It All

2012-01-03T10:18:00.000-06:00

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE www.nationalreview.com PRINT

My Guiding Principle: The Dignity of Life

By Rick Santorum

January 2, 2012 4:00 A.M.

I have been asked many times, from town-hall meetings in Iowa to diners in South Carolina, to articulate what I believe in — not just about a given issue, or even something as fundamental as the role of government, but about life and reality. Folks want to know what frames my understanding of how things are and how they ought to be, my “worldview,” in order to have insight into what will guide my decision making if the American electorate chooses me to represent them in the White House.

There are two texts in particular that have framed my worldview, my fundamental belief system, as it relates to my role as a public official. One is political and the other Biblical, and both foster an orienting belief that, more than any other, directs my decision making: the dignity of every human being.
#ad#First, I hold these truths to be self evident: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
I can’t begin to count how many times over my public life I have quoted this foundational statement from the Declaration of Independence. It is the worldview that was held by and oriented our founders. It is a worldview that has been challenged for over two centuries, and even now is under attack. But it is this radical notion of God-granted rights and equality that set our course apart from other nations whose revolutions asserted that rights were derived from the will of either the majority or a small, enlightened elite. Our founders understood that human nature is deeply flawed and that over time, and without safeguards, government and other powers will exploit rather than protect life.
The second text is from Genesis 1:27: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” We do not just have rights granted to us by our Creator; even more radically, the rights we have reflect that we have been created in God’s image. Each person has been made by God’s own hand with a purpose, each with an eternal destiny, and each with equal value, dignity, and worth. Human life must be protected at all costs, as there is nothing else of equal or greater value in our created universe.
Some may discount my appeal to a Scripture passage, but not our Founding Fathers. George Washington in particular affirmed the necessity of religion to the sustenance of democracy, in a 1796 speech:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness — these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

These beliefs are essential to the foundation and future of our nation. As Dostoevsky wrote in The Brothers Karamazov: “If you were to destroy in mankind the belief in immortality, not only love but every living force maintaining the life of the world would at once be dried up. Moreover, nothing then would be immoral, everything would be lawful.”
I have become a radical believer in every person’s human dignity. It is the driver of my worldview, and therefore in conclusion I believe:
#*#Every person, whether the baby in utero, my little girl Bella with her challenges, or the AIDS orphan in the inner city, has inherent dignity, and we must do all we can to preserve and respect that dignity.
#*#Government has to be strong enough to protect human life, but limited enough to never exploit it.
#*#As our founders recognized religion as an “indispensable support” to the health of society and necessary for the understanding of human life, government should never inhibit or discourage its role in the public square.
My greatest concern is that we are at a crossroads of deep consequence regarding the role of government in the lives of the American people. Without correcting course, the road we are on will lead to the further devaluation of the inherent dignity of our citizens and their ability to live in freedom and safety. I am committed to doing everything possible to respect and protect that dignity, and opposing and reversing any policies and programs that undermine it.
— Rick Santorum is a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania and a Republican presidential candidate.

Permalink

The Year in Review - What "Change" Do You Want in 2012?

2011-12-26T13:44:00.001-06:00

Ring in the New Year ... and ring out the old. Every year on December 31st, most people celebrate the end of one year, and look forward to the beginning of a new one with much excitement and anticipation. Resolutions are made, which may or may not be kept, in the hope that things will be better in the next year. Basically, with each new year, people look forward to "Change". Where have we heard that word before?

The first thing I would like to "Change" in the new year of 2012, is the guy who championed that word in the 1st place; successfully securing himself a place of power in history. This was his promise: "Change you could believe in". This was the mantra, that many voters fell for. So let's just take a look back at the past year, and see what changed in 2011.

In January of 2011, he re-nominates 4 pro-abortion judges, and selects pro-abortion William Daley as his Chief of Staff. He also celebrated the 38th anniversary of Roe v Wade, and recommitted himself to the the right of unlimited abortion with these words, "Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women's health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle; that government should not intrude on private family matters. I am committed to protecting this constitutional right, and on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunity as our sons to fulfill their dreams."

In February of 2011, he rewarded the "Catholic" Health Association for being instrumental in the passage of Obamacare. He then weakened the conscience protection for health care workers.

In March of 2011, the Obama Administration refused to investigate videos showing Planned Parenthood helping alleged sex-traffickers get abortions for young girls, and threatened to veto a bill defunding Planned Parenthood's abortion business. Michelle Obama hosted a party honoring Planned Parenthood's president Cecile Richards at the White House, for the 100th anniversary of International Women's Day.

In April of 2011, he refused Republican leadership's request to cut taxpayer funding to the Planned Parenthood abortion business. He castigated the Vatican over family planning and hosted an Easter breakfast for (pro-abortion) religious leaders.

In May of 2011, he was busy meeting with abortion advocates.

In June of 2011, his administration denied Indiana's request to defund Planned Parenthood's abortion business and approved more taxpayer funded embryonic stem-cell research.

In July of 2011, a report showed the Obama policies resulted in 300 tax-funded abortions in Washington, DC. The Obama Administration demands that New Hampshire make taxpayers fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business.

In August of 2011, he forces insurance companies to pay for abortion drugs under his national health care plan. He approves more taxpayer funded embryonic stem-cell research on August 19th.

In September of 2011, the Obama Administration was busy preparing to force all Catholic employers in the United States to cover contraception, including abortifacient drugs, without an adequate conscience clause.

In October of 2011, President Obama threatened to veto the Protect Life Act, which would prevent federal funding for abortion, including coverage programs created by Obama Care.

In November of 2011, Mr. Change is busy preparing for his re-election campaign, by putting in place a (Catholic) Coalition to garner the Catholic vote.

In December of 2011, just in time for Christmas, more embryonic stem-cell funding was approved. Remember folks, the funding we're talking about throughout this report, is (taxpayer) funding. That's you and me. We are bank-rolling Mr Change's changes.

These are just brief overviews of Mr. Change's "change to believe in", which he brought about over the past year of 2011. President Obama is the most pro-abortion president we have had to date. He is totally committed to abortion on demand, in all it's gory forms. This is the real "Change" he was talking about, when he 1st came on the scene.

So, while you are searching for that much needed job, before you lose your house and home, your president is more concerned with promoting abortion, making you support it, financially as well as morally. It is his religion .. the only "Change" he really believes in. Question is, what do you believe in? And what are you going to do about it? What do you want to see "changed" in 2012?

2011-12-22T09:03:00.002-06:00

We at Lake County Right to Life want to wish all of you a Blessed and Holy Christmas Season.

The Christmas Story resounds with an affirmation of life, beginning with the Angel Gabriel's announcement of the Savior's birth to a simple little Jewish girl named Mary who lived in Nazareth. Her humble and obedient "yes" to God's invitation to become the Mother of God reflects our own "yes" to defend Life. As the story continues, Mary with child travels with haste to the hill country of Judea, where Elizabeth feels her unborn son, John the Baptist, leap for joy in her womb. Later, Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem, where the Son of God is born in a humble stable. Choirs of angel's announce his birth, by singing peace on earth to men of good will.

Although this story is about the "Good News' of our salvation, there is a parallel to be considered. For although we usually think of Christmas as a time of good cheer, we often forget that there is another part of the story that is equally important. For shortly after the Savior's birth, Joseph and Mary are forced to flee Herod who seeks the death of the Christ child. King Herod, in a savage frenzy to destroy the newborn Christ child, murders countless numbers of innocents.

Today, King Herod is alive and well and sitting in the White House, and he is still seeking the death of innocents. Herod seeking the death of the child is just as much a part of the Christmas story as the joyful birth of the babe in the manger. We are involved in this same parallel today.

Today, the media shows our President lighting the national Christmas tree and smiling beside his beaming wife and children, but we cannot forget that he has been the most pro-abortion president in history. We cannot forget that back in Springfield, President Obama was the only state senator to speak out against providing protection to babies surviving late-term abortions.

Our "King Herod" has not let up-his recent efforts have included a push for all of us to pay for chemical abortions. His administration excludes organizations working to protect victims of human trafficking if they refuse to refer clients for abortions.

So, as we reflect this year on these parallels of the Christmas Story, let us re-commit ourselves to the issue of life, not just as a mental assent or a part-time hobby, but as a divine call. This is a time when we are all being called to live the Christmas message in a much deeper way than we may have in the past.

Lake County Right to Life wishes you and your loved ones a Holy and Blessed Christmas and a Happy New Year.

From Small Beginnings ...

2011-12-21T09:59:00.002-06:00

Small Beginnings

We at Lake County Right to Life are delighted by the recently released statistics from the Illinois Dept. of Public Health, showing that the number of abortions performed on Lake County residents revealed a 5% decrease for 2010. These numbers reflect Lake County Right to Life's impact in Lake County.

We could not have accomplished this work without you. You are the reason for Lake County Right to Life's success - because you are Lake County Right to Life. You are the heart and soul of this organization, which would not exist without you.

With your help, Lake County Right to Life has made a huge impact for Life in Lake County, through advocacy, witness and education (AWE). Here are a few of the activities that we are engaged in throughout the year, which we could not accomplish without you.

First and foremost, through your generosity, Lake County Right to Life now has a fully functioning professional office and staff.
With your help, Lake County Right to Life is able to use social media to reach out and educate our members, through our website, Constant Contact emails, Blog, Twitter and Facebook.
Your support has also helped Lake County Right to Life present educational forums, which are held throughout the year. These educational forums help keep pro-lifers up to date on the ever changing face of the Life issue. These forums help influence the community.
With your help, we make available up-to-date news regarding all that is transpiring in Washington, DC and Springfield on the Life issues.
Our Candidate Forum and voter guide has helped you to vote for the candidates who support Life. This has resulted in the decreasing abortion statistics in Lake County.
Other activities include an annual Signature Ad commemorating the Roe v Wade decision. Your public witness for Life, is reflected in supporting our parades, Life Chains and 40 Days for Life.

We are delighted that the abortion statistics in Lake County and Illinois have decreased. However, we cannot rest. The fight is not over, so we look forward to continuing to defend life together in the public arena.

A Battle Won - The War Continues

2011-12-20T10:53:00.000-06:00

Abortion Numbers Drop in Illinois

The 2010 abortion statistics for Illinois have been released, and the numbers are headed in the right direction. In 2010, 41,859 abortions were performed in Illinois. This is the lowest number since 1973.

The 2010 number represents a 9% decrease from the 46,077 Illinois abortions in 2009. Abortions fell for residents of most counties and for all age groups. In Lake County, there were 1,398 abortions in 2010, down from 1,474 in 2009. This represents a 5% decrease.

More to follow on this great news

Is The US Far Behind China in Organ Transplantion Methods? A Different Caliber of Bullet.

2011-12-12T13:02:00.000-06:00

The US is not far from China's organ trafficking processes - that is - the process of harvesting human organs from a live patient. China has admitted to the harvesting of organs from condemned prisoners, which accounts for two-thirds of their transplants. But these are simply not condemned prisoners who are non-voluntarily having their organs harvested immediately following their execution.

Investigative journalist Ethan Gutmann of the Weekly Standard interviewed several Uighur refugees, who had actually witnessed the process of prisoner organ transplantation. The Uighur ethnic minority lives in Xinjiang, the vast Western province of China. They are actually Turkic Muslims, a few of which have even joined terrorist groups. "When it comes to the first organ harvesting of political prisoners, Xinjiang was ground zero," says Gutmann.

What these Uigher refugees told Gutmann, is unbelievably horrific! First of all, the prisoners were not necessarily all condemned men, but simply political prisoners - some of whom were young men who had been arrested for merely participating in political demonstrations.

The process reported was as follows: prisoners are injected with an anticoagulant, after which they are dispatched with a bullet to the right side of the chest. This renders them unconscious while still remaining alive. The organs are then quickly removed, without anesthetic to ensure freshness; and immediately transplanted to patients, who appear to be mostly Communist Party officials. Some of approximately 65,000 prisoners had their hearts harvested, while they were still beating, even before the 20008 Olympics!

Getting back to the US. The United Network for Organ Sharing is a non-profit organization that coordinates organ donation under a contract with the federal government, has proposed a change in the guidelines governing donation after cardiac death or DCD. These donations are increasing yearly.

When organ donation was first proposed, the only criteria was brain-death. Now, some years later, we've raised that bar by including people who are not brain-dead, but "may" die ... determined by who?

In the new guidelines, the requirement that "before evaluating a patient whose heart is still beating, for organ donation based on donation by cardiac-death criteria, the hospital's primary healthcare team and the legal next of kin, must have decided to withdraw ventilator support, or other life sustaining treatment, and that decision must be documented in the patient's chart, has been stricken."
A new sentence has been added, "A patient with end-stage muscularskeletal disease, pulmonary disease or upper spinal cord injury, may also be a suitable donation by cardiac-death candidate. What? This means that ALS patients plus other neurological disorders could become candidates for organ donation based on donation by cardiac-death. So what's the big deal? If the heart stops, isn't the patient dead anyway?

Let's explain: In 1997, the National Academy of Sciences said, a donation by Cardiac death or DCD, was ethical, as long as "tight" rules were followed. The decision to withdraw care must be independent of the decision to donate organs; and before removing any organs, surgeons must wait at least 5 minutes after the heart stops, to make sure it doesn't start to beat again.

The new donation by cardiac-death criteria involves, surgeons taking organs within moments of respirators and other forms of life-support being cut off from patients, who still have brain activity. In the relentless quest to get more organs, some hospitals began cutting the "waiting time" that the existing guidelines permitted. Some of them only waiting 75 seconds before taking hearts from brain damaged newborn babies. The rule revision also renames the procedure again, calling it "Donation after circulatory death". That terminology is more accurate because the heart may not necessarily be dead before death is declared ---- a different caliber of bullet to dispatch the patient.

Election vs Morals?

2011-12-08T11:59:00.000-06:00

Government Makes Decision on Plan B

Today was the deadline for the FDA to respond to Teva Pharmaceuticals' request that the Plan B morning-after pill be made available for over-the-counter sale. Currently, women 17 and older can purchase the drug with proof of age. It was expected that the FDA would approve Teva's request.

Lake County Right to Life, along with many other pro-life groups, opposed this move and urged the agency to reject it. This pill has numerous negatives besides causing abortions:

Without a prescription, Plan B allows potential harm from unsupervised, high doses of hormones, while interfering with parents' ability to monitor their children.
Plan B increases the risks of cervical cancer and blood clots.
Plan B has an adverse effect on the immune system, which has been linked to an increased vulnerability to HIV infection.
Without a prescription, Plan B sets up children for victimization by sexual predators.

Considering the aggressively pro-abortion stance of the Obama administration and recent anti-life decisions by HHS Secretary Katherine Sebelius, it came as a surprise today when Secretary Sebelius overrode the FDA and decided to keep the current regulation in place. Sebelius expressed her concern that very young girls couldn't properly understand how to use the drug without guidance from an adult. In a statement posted on the HHS website, she stated that Teva Pharmaceutical Industries had not presented enough evidence to show that younger girls would properly understand the label and use the pill appropriately without talking to a doctor first.

Secretary Sebelius also pointed out that the average U.S. girl reaches childbearing age at 12.4 years, but that 10 percent of girls are capable of becoming pregnant at 11.1 years. "It is common knowledge that there are significant cognitive and behavioral differences between older adolescent girls and the youngest girls of reproductive age," Sebelius said. "If the application were approved, the product would be available, without prescription, for all girls of reproductive age." You can read the entire statement here: Statement

Pro-abortion advocates called the decision "beyond stunning" and "an outrage." Kirsten Moore of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project said, "We are outraged that this administration has let politics trump science." To pro-lifers, this statement is surreal, as we have witnessed politics trumping science and ethics to advance the pro-abortion agenda for years.

We are pleased with Secretary Sebelius' decision. However, in light of this administration's consistently anti-life direction, we are realistic, not cynical, to agree with Kirsten Moore in wondering if the reason behind this announcement had more to do with product labeling or President Obama's re-election.

Sperm & Egg Donors - What Are You Really Selling?

2011-12-06T10:42:00.001-06:00

Alana Stewart, is one of an estimated 30 - 60,000 children conceived each year in the United States through sperm donation, whose story will be featured in an upcoming documentary titled: "Anonymous Father's Day".

Alana knows the color of her father's eyes and hair, and that he has a college degree. She also knows his number ... 81 ... the number assigned to him by the sperm bank, where he deposited his sperm for sale. Number 81 would never be there to raise Alana, watch her take her first steps, see her off to her first day of school, worry over her first date or when she got her driver's license. Number 81 would not be in the audience when she stepped up to receive her college diploma. Number 81 would not walk her down the aisle if and when she ever got married. Number 81 would not be there for Father's Day. He was an "Anonymous Father".

Today, that estimated 30 - 60,000 children conceived through sperm donation have become adults, and are speaking out about what it is and has been like to be fathered by sperm donors. Alana states: "The biological parent’s absence is impossible to ignore because their presence is impossible to ignore - when you’re living in a version of their body and thinking in a version of their brain,” “I do very much feel separated from not only my father, but my entire paternal relatives."

In science's quest to help parents who want a child, the child itself has unfortunately been left out of the consideration. Does the parent's need to have a child, supersede the child's need to have a father and mother? This also applies to same-sex couples who are able to appropriate a child for themselves via this route. Do people have the right to overlook another, in seeking something for themselves? This is what has been happening today, with sperm and also egg donation, where human DNA is a commodity for sale in the marketplace. We once sold human beings in the slave markets in this country. Now we sell our own family's genetic history in the marketplace.

Case in point. My mother was a very creative and artistic person, now deceased, who passed her talents on down to myself, through the virtue of her DNA. She never had to teach me how to paint and draw, or write stories; it was already encoded in my genetic makeup, which I inherited along with her strawberry blonde hair and blue eyes. Then I grew up to marry and have 5 children of my own; none of which seemed to inherit these artistic abilities, passed to me from my mother. A couple of my kids inherited my writing talents, but they could barely draw a stick person! Then, twenty-six years later, my daughter gave birth to a little girl, who just so happened to be born exactly on my mother's birthday!

Little Grace was born on my mother's birthday, with the same strawberry blonde hair and blue eyes, and lo and behold, a few years later began to exhibit tremendous artistic abilities, along with amazing creative writing skills! Grace, now 12 years old, can paint, draw and create amazing sculptures from clay. She has begun making her own little videos, in what is known as "Claymations", little animated videos of her clay figures! It is amazing! She is looking forward to developing her talents, and her mother has already looked into a special high school which specializes in artistic children's needs, preparing them for college.

Now that I've bragged on my granddaughter enough, there is a point here to my boasting. What if Grace had simply been an egg or sperm sold at a reproductive center? All the genetic makeup which is the inheritance of our family, would be sold off with her, and she would never know from where she received these talents. A little strawberry blonde, blue eyed prodigy of our family would be out there somewhere unknown to us, and we to her. As I was a little sad to see that none of my own 5 children had not inherited the artistic abilities from myself and my mother, I would have never had the chance to see them realized in my little granddaughter. These precious gifts would have been sold off, like a mere commercial product. Though none of my 5 children had exhibited those artistic abilities, nevertheless they were still there in their DNA. That DNA, which one of my 5 children would later pass on to her own little girl ... Grace.

Though each and every one of us is a one of a kind unique soul, created by God, never to be repeated, yet we are each and every one of us made up of a "shared genetic pattern" passed down through the generations of our families. Our particular looks, character, mannerisms, gifts and talents, are all shared by each and every unique individual from each family.

Once again, taking a queue from my parent's generation ... they had another expression regarding a man's sperms. They would call this, "the family jewels". I used to wonder as a child what this odd expression meant. Now I know. Number 81 was not just selling a human seed to grow a baby for another. He was selling off Uncle Henry's scintillating wit, Aunt Martha's beautiful smile, Grandma Pearl's red hair and blue eyes ... Grandpa's musical talents ... or Grandma's artistic gift. All of these gifts and talents and everything that contributes to the whole of who we are, are held in the genetics of our father's sperm, and our mother's ovum. What gifts and talents did number 81 sell off?

Now, when Alana Stewart has her own daughter one day, God willing, what will her little girl inherit from number 81? And how will she know?

Gardasil victims speak out in videos

2011-12-01T13:43:00.001-06:00

"I wanna be one less one less," the commercial chants, promoting the Gardasil vaccine purported to protect your child from certain HPV virus strains, that can cause cancer. The vaccine is now being suggested for boys as well as girls, starting at ages 12 yrs. old. Watch this crucial informative video to see what they are NOT telling you about the Gardasil vaccine, which may possibly be given to your child in a school based clinic, without your knowledge or consent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gCVCP8BFrU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCnmUp2sKiY

Socialism Coming to a School Near You - School Based Health Centers

2011-12-01T13:41:00.000-06:00

Dr. Spock told parents how to raise their children, but, at least, he didn't take them away and do it for them. He was a pacifist who was opposed to spanking. Now following in the footsteps of the Nazis and Communists, your child will now be raised by those who consider themselves your "betters". They will also not spank your children, but will choose any medical care they deem appropriate, including abortion, without your knowledge. How convenient is that? You no longer have to raise your own children. The state will do it for you, albeit with your tax dollars. What a world. Mrs. Doubtfire has become just one more casualty in the unemployment line, losing her job to the government. That government is coming to a school near you under the guise of a School-Based Clinic - in Round Lake no less.

The Round Lake School Board held an open meeting on November 28th to discuss plans for the implementation of a School-Based "Health Center" (note the change in language from clinic to health center). Here's some of what we learned - The government expert explained that parents would initially be required to sign a "consent" form for their child to receive treatment from the health center. This parental consent would then be "on file"; after which there would be no further necessity to notify parents, and the child could come in for any medical treatment, with or without the parents knowledge or consent. She further explained, that Illinois law regarding minors and the Right to Consent to Health Care, states that children from the age of 12 on up, may receive medical care without parental notification. So the parental consent form seems a mere formality, with no substance. Once they've got your signature, they've got your kid; which under Illinois Law, they can treat with whatever medical treatment they deem fit. Consider the myriad of medical situations - physical, psychological and even sexual reproductive matters. All of these would be left to the discretion of your local socialist school based health center professionals, who I might add, won't even be doctors, but physician assistants.

Parents were allowed to address the Elected school board members with their questions and concerns; one of which was understandably, whether or not their child could be taken for an abortion, without parental knowledge? The government official, very condescendingly, responded to such an ignorant parental fear by saying, "that "we" (your betters) would certainly encourage your child to "consult" with you their parents." "However, if your child was "not comfortable" with consulting you, (inferring your child could not trust you), they could access needed treatment without consulting you." How benevolent of them! If you daughter discovers she is pregnant, and is afraid to come to you as her cruel and judgmental parent, she will be able to turn to the loving arms of your local socialist school based health center physician assistant, who will compassionately refer her for an abortion! You need never know about it. Is ignorance truly bliss?

Other parents also questioned the lack of funds for school expansion and programs. One parent questioned the rational of implementing a health center when the educational needs of the students were far from being met. The father brought up the fact that the school could not even provide an adequate math class to meet his daughter's level, and the girl was forced to attend classes which were beneath her ability. This required the parents to supplement her education at home. Another parental comment regarded the sports fields, which the school provided, compared them to cow pastures. These and other educational concerns of parents, questioned the source of monies needed to pay for a school based-clinic, when other "educational" needs were from being met. The government "expert" once again, condescendingly answered these ignorant parental concerns regarding monies, claiming that all of the money would come from government grants. Now, any government expert should know, whenever a school-based clinic is placed in a community, the government funds run out within the first year, necessitating the local taxpayer to begin picking up the tab. Don't forget this is duplicate funding, because the taxpayer is already paying for the local health department.

Over the past 40 years or so, we have witnessed a slow progression of parental rights being attacked. Dr. Spock, styled himself as an expert in child-rearing, whose advice was religiously followed by many World War II generation parents. Advice on child-rearing is one thing. Today there are books and experts galore, to choose from on the psychology of child-rearing. The key word here is "choose". It is one thing to seek advice. It is quite another to have your choice completely taken away when it comes to the upbringing and formation, and even health care of your children. And this parental takeover has not happened overnight!

Back in the 1950's, popular television shows such as "Father's Knows Best", and Leave it to Beaver, depicted parents as the persons in possession of the wisdom and knowledge which could be sought out by their children. As time went by, television shows, as well as movies, began depicting parents as foolish, conflicted imbeciles, who ultimately needed to be straightened out by some wise 7 yr. old guru.   As a girl of the "sixties", I recall the popular phrase, "don't trust anyone over 30". Some very clever socialistic person obviously crafted this phrase as just one of the first of many steps in the takeover of parental authority over children.

Today, we have our local Socialist School system in place, which seeks more and more to take away parental authority and any choice, or even knowledge, regarding their child's formation. Are we surprised at the widespread sexual abuse of our children, by those in power within our school systems, public and private? Children have become commodities, mere objects. A commodity is not looked upon as a person who is loved by someone, but a mere object to be used however one desires ... even if that desire is disordered.

Hillary Clinton made the famous statement, "It takes a village to raise a child." This was just another chink in the armor of the parent's role in choosing how to raise their own child. Their child now belongs to a village ... or more aptly in today's vernacular ... the State ... and that state will now raise your child, and see to all his or her medical needs. I don't want to even think of what all those needs the state might consider necessary.

Moral Dillemmas - Is There a Prophylactic Against Sin?

2011-11-30T11:37:00.001-06:00

As if we didn't have enough moral dilemmas in this day and age, the Gardasil vaccine has presented us with just one more. Whether or not to inoculate your child against harmful and immoral behavior is the latest moral dilemma which Gardasil has brought to the table.

The combined oral contraceptive pill was first approved for use in the United States in 1960. I personally recall at this time, many young girls in the neighborhood, starting at only 14 yrs. of age, suddenly needing to be put on the "Pill", as it became popularly known. "My mother took me to the doctor for my menstrual irregularities and cramps," they would tell me, "and the doctor put me on the "Pill". Following soon afterward, these girls became the most popular dates for the boys in the neighborhood. Can you guess why? Those of us who did not take the Pill, for our menstrual dilemmas, sat home on Saturday night. Hmmm.

The real reason that these young girls had been put on the pill, was certainly obvious to the young girls themselves; figuring that their parents simply did not want the embarrassment of a pregnant teenage daughter. And so was born the new age of "Free Love" and "Women's Liberation", and the greatest age of sexual promiscuity probably since the ancient Roman times.

The widespread phenomenon of condom distribution among youth followed upon the heels of the Pill revolution, as apparently putting their daughters on theis oral contraceptive had not only led to sexual promiscuity among young people, but had fostered a false sense of security among them as well. This has led to today's commercials for the Pill now having to add the disclaimer, that the pill does not prevent against sexually transmitted diseases. Unfortunately, what they have left out of this disclaimer, is the fact that the Pill does not prevent against getting your heart broken either. The so called "Women's Lib" era had simply made women more vulnerable than ever before. Wake up girls!

And the damage control continues on, as today's parents are faced with another moral dilemma regarding their child's sexual behavior, and how to protect them from the negative side-effects of such. The Pill, which was supposed to be a magical answer to give women sexual freedom and control over their reproductive faculties, has led to today's dilemma of how to control sexually transmitted diseases. Today parents are being told they need to vaccinate their young girls, and now young boys, against certain cancers which result from a virus contracted through sexual contact. The snow ball keeps getting bigger and bigger as it keeps rolling along the path of "sexual license".

So, let's take a look at today's newest weapon in the arsenal to protect their new age of sexual liberation. The US Governments Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), reports that Gardasil has been linked to 49 sudden deaths, 213 permanent disabilities, 137 reports of cervical dysplasia, 41 reports of cervical cancer and thousands of adverse event reports ranging from headaches, nausea, genital warts anaphylactic shock, grand mal convulsions, coma and paralysis. All this, and it only prevents against 2 of the 100 different strains of HPV, the virus which can cause cancer. On top of all that, how many other adverse reactions are there that have not been reported, because the victim does not know about how to file an adverse reaction report, or where to even go to do such.

Weighing the risks of Gardasil against the actual protection it supposedly gives, is what parent's must now decide for their adolescent children. Furthermore, they must fear giving their kid's the same message which their grandparent's generation gave their daughters by putting them on the Pill; that of assuming they will be sexually immoral. The effects of the Gardasil vaccine, have to date, only been surmised, not scientifically proven.

So where have all these miraculous prophylactics of modern medicine led us to? Is there really a prophylactic against the repercussions of SIN!

Yale and NASA and Unborn Babies

2011-11-25T12:56:00.001-06:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyljukBE70
Image-maker, Alexander Tsiaras, has worked as an associate professor of medicine and a chief of scientific visualization at Yale University.He has participated in developing scientific visualization software, enabling him to “paint” human anatomy using volume data. His task at Yale was to write many of the algorithms and code for NASA to do virtual surgery in preparation for astronauts going into deep space flights so they could be kept in robotic pods.

It was during this process that he was enabled to intricately see things about the human preborn body. By using special scanning technologies, which he tracked in a very detailed manner, a baby’s development could be looked at in great detail.

In his words, these pictures were enough to make one marvel at the complexity. He even acknowledged that the human body is—get this—so structured that “it was hard not to attribute divinity to it.” Yes, this is a Yale scientist finding it difficult not to give God glory for the wonderful way in which we were knit together in our mothers’ wombs.

For centuries, physicians, scientists and artists alike have attempted to comprehend how life begins in a mother’s womb and matures into the miracle of a baby. Who would have thought that Yale and NASA would play a key role in showing there’s undeniably beautiful and amazingly defined life inside? It’s really exciting to consider if you think about it.

Occupy Wall Street vs Thanksgiving & the Widow's Mite.

2011-11-23T12:01:00.001-06:00

On this Thanksgiving 2011, while the Occupy Wall Streeters have made their complaints heard about the inequities of life, I would like to bring up the famous biblical story of the Widow's Mite. We should all be familiar with the story of the poor woman, who came to the temple one day and deposited a few measly coins in the collection box. Jesus contrasted her small donation with that of others who were much more monetarily endowed; pointing out that she had "given from her want". He teaches his apostles, that her miniscule donation had required a far greater sacrifice, than those who had far more to give. In fact, Jesus hints that those who had more, had probably given way less than they could have afforded, in comparison to the poor widow, who had given all she had.

The Occupy Wall Streeters have been singing the age old tune of the haves and the have-nots, which is at the top of the hit parade these days; especially since Obama took office. I also find this in stark contrast to the Widow's Mite, as well as the 1st Pilgrims, who celebrated the 1st Thanksgiving way back in 1620. This attitude of entitlement has taken over the attitude of thankfulness, as well as asking what we can give, as opposed to what we can get.

We can all find something to be thankful for, even in the midst of an inequitable and corrupt world. We can all look more to what we are able to contribute, even from our want, instead of being cry babies over what the other guy has that we don't have. Yes, much of what the other guy has may very well be "ill gotten gains" (another term from my parent's generation); but they can keep their ill gotten gains as far as I'm concerned. I don't want their booty.

As a child growing up in the 1950's, a time of relative plenty for most Americans, my family had far less than my contemporaries; and my siblings and I were considered the "poor kids" in the neighborhood." Did this bother me? I won't lie; sometimes it did. There were times when I was ashamed of my shabby, 2nd hand clothing, in a school where all the other little girls and boys were adequately attired in the newest styles of the times. We did not have things like potato chips and Twinkies in our household cupboard, as the other neighborhood kids did. And yes, I got made fun of because of my out of date and worn out clothing, which did not fit my skinny frame. But, did I really consider myself to be poor? Did I think that the world was unfair, and that somebody out there owed me something? More importantly, did I see myself, as someone who had "nothing to give"?

Au Contrare! Whenever things came in the mail, from missions, showing pictures of poor little starving children, with swollen bellies and flies swarming around their heads, I would inevitably ask my mother, "can we give them some money?" Even though I at times had holes in my own shoes, I still wanted to give some money to those poor kids in the missions. And so we did. We gave from our want, as the widow in the Bible; and I was so happy to be able to help others. I did not focus on those who had more than myself; rather I looked to those who had less, and sought to find something out of my own want to give them. On top of that, I was "thankful" for every little thing that the Good Lord had given me. I counted my blessings, as my grandparent's generation had always taught me; and I learned the virtue of "not feeling sorry for myself".

This is a world of inequities and unfair situations; and I am not saying that we should not endeavor to rectify these inequities, whenever and however we can. But, always remembering, that it is not about what we can get, as it is about what we can give - and always giving thanks for what we do have, instead of looking at what we don't have. Instead of seeing ourselves as have-nots, see ourselves as people who have much to give, and much to be thankful for. Realizing, that though we may have less than some, we will always have more than others. Let's see how can we help those others, instead of how we can help ourselves .. to the rich man's booty.

To this very day, looking at our financial situation, especially since my husband has been out of work for quite some time, we still get piles of mail from various missions and causes and suffering people, to which my husband and I still strive to imitate the widow in the Bible. We still prefer to see ourselves, as people who have much to give, no matter what our circumstances.

So, if you think the world is filled with inequities - instead of looking to see how much more you can get for yourself - try and see how much more you can give. For if we ALL gave a little more, there would be a little less inequity in the world. And most of all ... let us give thanks, for the many blessings we do have, which the Good God bestows on the rich and poor alike. The best things in life are still free.

Occupy Wall Street Marauders vs A Civilized Society

2011-11-18T15:13:00.001-06:00

While the media is concentrating on the Occupy Wall Streeters in New York, and Mayor Bloomberg is rationalizing the protesters, New York City reports that there are 1 in 6 deaths, 1,200 in total, among developmentally disabled persons. State and privately run homes have been blamed for unnatural or unknown causes in these deaths. The New York case-files, in fact, suggest the deaths were caused by neglect, and could have been easily prevented. In fact, the editors from Albany Times Union Newspaper, called the situation a disgrace; especially given the the fact that the state spends $10 billion a year for the care of the developmentally disabled. That much money, and 1 in 6 developmentally disabled people are dying?

To make matters even worse, the causes of these deaths are totally preventable. New York case files suggest the deaths were caused by neglect and could have been easily prevented. Case in point: James Michael Taylor, a 41 yr. old quadriplegic, was placed in a tub by his caregiver, who turned on the water and then left the room. The water rose over his head, and he slowly drowned in 15 minutes. Only God knows what went through his mind as the water rose.

Let's take a trip now to the Occupy Wall Street fiasco. The mayor has defended the protesters, and this has been a feeding frenzy for the media. A slew of New York politicians criticized Mayor Bloomberg, when he finally ordered the eviction of the vermin infested protesters, for violating their civil rights. One has to question, is Mayor Bloomberg investigating the 1,200 deaths of his developmentally disabled citizens? Where's the media coverage? I have watched, ad-nausea, the continuing support of anarchists and the like, who exhibit the most vile ways of expressing their freedom of speech. I also have to add, many of them can't even talk in any kind of coherent or intelligible fashion.

Why this preference by the media for covering "marauders", while the disabled in the same city are being neglected to the cause of death. Perhaps, Bobby Schindler said it best: "These figures reflect society's growing callousness toward the disability community ... because a person's physical appearance changes, because a person isn't able to do all the things an able bodied person can do, somehow their life is devalued.

These able bodied Occupy Wall Street marauders, prey on a civilized society, have much more to be thankful for than they realize. And instead they should be more concerned with their truly disadvantaged brothers and sisters. A civilized society is one which should be sensitive to all people, especially those who are in most need, and cannot care for themselves.

2011-11-16T11:14:00.000-06:00

Supreme Court Begins Review of Obama Care

Should Kagan Recuse Herself?

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin reviewing the new national health care law, commonly known as Obama Care. A decision is expected in the spring.

As you know, Lake County Right to Life strongly and totally opposes the ironically named Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--here are some reasons why:

It certainly doesn't protect unborn babies, because the law expands government involvement in abortion.

It certainly will not protect the elderly or physically vulnerable, because the law includes health care rationing.

When the bill was being considered in Congress, a key amendment preventing government funding of abortion or abortion coverage in insurance plans was dead on arrival in the pro-abortion Senate.

Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee notes that "the time for petition campaigns is past," because you can't lobby the Supreme Court. He adds that those who disagree with ObamaCare must work to shift control of the White House and Senate in the 2012 election so the bill can be repealed. Certainly a position Lake County Right to Life strongly supports.

As the Supreme Court begins reviewing this law, one important issue concerns Obama appointed Justice Elena Kagan. The Supreme Court is closely divided, often ruling 5-4. Before being nominated to the Court, Justice Kagan was Obama's solicitor general, which means she was the person appointed to represent the federal government before the Supreme Court. "As such, throughout the Obama Care debate, she headed the office that was responsible for formulating the administration's legal defense of ObamaCare," notes Jeffrey H. Anderson, senior fellow in health care studies at the Pacific Research Institute and former director of the Benjamin Rush Society.

The law states than federal judges are required to recuse themselves if they have been involved with a case before it reaches the bench or if it is questionable that they would be impartial. When asked during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings about whether she'd ever been asked her opinion or offered views on legal issues related to ObamaCare, she answered no.

However, emails between Kagan and Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, released by the Department of Justice last week, belie this. Some, in fact, make her sound like a cheerleader for Obama Care.

Kagan has given no indication that she will recuse herself. Carrie Severino, chief counsel of the Judicial Crisis Network and expert on judicial nominations, says that "Kagan took early and aggressive action to involve her office in Obama Care and was part of the deliberative process in the Obama Care defense strategy." Severino accuses Kagan of "playing coach and umpire in the same game." In a bizarre contrast, some supporters of Obama Care have been calling for Clarence Thomas to recuse himself because his wife works for the Heritage Foundation.

Lake County Right to Life urges its members to pray for individual Justices of the Supreme Court and also to pray that justice will be prevail.

A Story of Two Mothers - King Solomon Decides - What is True Motherhood?

2011-11-16T10:15:00.001-06:00

Pretty much everyone who has read or heard stories from the Bible, have all heard the well known story of two women who sought a judgment from King Solomon over a baby. One woman had apparently rolled over on her baby during the night and smothered it, or perhaps it had died of crib-death, unknown at the time. Either way, there were now two mothers, one child alive, another child dead, who were both fighting over the live child.

Today in the news, there are again two mothers, with one child alive and one dead. The 1st mother from Hanover Park, Illinois, is being held without bail on first-degree murder and concealment of the homicide of her own newborn baby boy. Nineteen year old Jessica Cruz walked into a Salvation Army store on November 4th and asked to use the employee bathroom, where she then gave birth to a 6 lb. baby boy, strangled him, and threw him in the garbage can.

Cruz had just recently graduated from high school, and had been hiding the pregnancy from everyone, except the baby's father. As Cruz is held, awaiting to appear in court, we do not yet know her full story. Whatever drove her to commit such a heinous act? Was she afraid of parents? Had her boyfriend abandoned her? We don't yet know the full story of what Cruz was going through, which led her to savagely murder her own baby. We know abortion proponents use the argument of the stresses and fears and dangers that women suffer from pregnancy, to justify legalized killing of unborn babies. But, as of yet, we do not know Cruz' story.

That aside, let's look at the other young mother, the 2nd mother, who was also experiencing stress, fears, dangers and abandonment, and what she "chose" to do about her unexpected pregnancy. Bethany Saros had just been deployed to Iraq, when she discovered she was pregnant. The contraceptive she had used, failed, and her boyfriend, the father of the child, broke his promise to stand by her and abandoned her. Furthermore, as a soldier in the military, particularly one who had just been deployed to a war-zone, she experienced "unspoken pressure" to "abort" her child, so that she could "carry on with the mission".

Saros had been experiencing stresses and trials for quite some time, as she had gone through an abusive marriage, a contentious divorce and another failed relationship. If that wasn't enough, she had also recently been raped by a co-worker, and was struggling with her own alcohol problem. Then, upon just arriving in Iraq, she discovers she is with child.

Her boyfriend asked her, "Are you going to keep it?" To which she answered, "YES." "I can't do an abortion, I just can't." At which point, even though he had promised to stand by her, his promise proved meaningless, and she found herself, pregnant, abandoned and halfway around the world from home. She felt as though her whole world had "come crashing down." Is that enough stress, fear and danger for ya? Planned Parenthood would have welcomed her into one of their clinics with open arms.

But despite all these obstacles, Saros was determined to keep her child stating, "I had let everyone around me down." But I wasn't going to let the little person snuggled up in my belly down."

Back to the Bible story. It is not really completely clear how the one woman's baby died, though I doubt she had strangled it. Yet, upon discovering her baby had died during the night, she decides she is simply going to steal the other woman's baby. And so, they both end up in the famous court of King Solomon; who then has to choose, which woman is the "true mother". Without DNA tests, King Solomon relies on the gift of wisdom with which God had endowed him, and he comes up with a test to prove who is the true mother. He declares that the baby shall be cut in two, and half given to each woman. We know that one mother immediately praised King Solomon for such a wise judgement, and went right along with the idea of killing the baby. But, the other woman cried for the child to be spared, even telling the King he could give it to the other mother, rather than see it be killed. Of course for those who know their Bible stories, King Solomon then states, that this was the "true mother", and she is awarded her baby.

Fast forward to today - how are these two stories connected? Well, today's two mothers are not in the court of King Solomon. One of the babies did not die by it's own mother's hand, and she is not seeking to steal the other woman's baby. But, the connection here is simply in how King Solomon is able to draw out what true motherhood really is. Whichever woman had been the true birth mother in the story, is not even at the heart of the question. A true mother, by King Solomon's measuring stick, is simply one who is willing to sacrifice for her own child, instead of only looking out for herself.

Between these two mothers in today's blog, Cruz vs Saros, one, Jessica Cruz was willing to go to the most violent lengths, rather than face whatever challenges the birth of her baby might pose; while the other, Bethany Saros, was willing to give her baby life, against all odds. She was willing to protect the life of her child, no matter what the personal cost was to herself.

All women faced with an out of wedlock pregnancy, can face embarrassment and shame in one way or another. But Bethany Saros states, "One day, my son will be old enough to ask me questions, and I want to be able to tell him that I gave him the best life I possibly could. At the end of the day, my son will be the only person I will have to explain myself to."

In today's abortion age, the test of true motherhood is based on something other than "sacrifice" as in King Solomon's time. All parents today, view parenthood as simply having something to do with, having some little progeny, that they can give soccer lessons, I-PODs and a college degree; and of course all the brand-name clothing of the day. The idea that the child might come along unscripted, and put a crimp in all these grandiose plans, is just unthinkable. And abortion or murder (what's the difference) in a Salvation Army store, or in a Planned Parenthood clinic, seems the judgement of today.

At the end of the day, there's not a lot of difference between a woman strangling her newborn in a bathroom, and a doctor sucking it's brains out, just because it's head has not presented itself. Abortion is murder, not choice. What would King Solomon say about abortion? Would he judge this to be the act of "true motherhood".

Who Pays The Price? - The Rape of Innocents

2011-11-14T11:25:00.003-06:00

I'm on a rant! it's a deep thinking rant. What is an innocent human life worth in this day and age? Why are we surprised at the Penn State child abuse scandal? Since the Roe v Wade decision, the value of innocent life has disappeared in America and most of the"once" civilized world.

When a mother can have her own child violently destroyed and ripped from her own body, why are we surprised to hear of children being murdered by their own parents, and stories like the Penn State child sex-abuse scandal?

Abortion has affected our society in so many ways, it's getting hard to keep track. The Penn State scandal, is a really sad indication of something that most of us keep wanting to avoid. That is, you cannot disrespect one innocent life, without losing the respect for all innocents.

Children have become commodities to be bought and sold by the sperm and egg donation mentality of today. And how does one look at a commodity? It's something that is expendable, or even disposable, and certainly only there for the mere satisfaction and gratification of it's owner and others, such as those who are supposed to be caring for the owner's property, such as a priest, minister, teacher or coach.

So let's look at the Penn State scandal in light of this hedonistic attitude and summarize the scandal. An icon at Penn State has been accused of covering up and failing to report pedophilia in the football locker room. The icon we're talking about has been a head coach of the Nittanny Lions from 1966 through 2011. In fact, he holds the record for the most victories by an FBS footbatll coach. He coached 5 undefeated teams that won major ball games, and in 2007 was inducted into the college Hall of Fame. Imagine the $$$$$$ to the University from such a sterling career. So what was really being protected here with this cover up?

I won't bore you with grissly details of who did what to whom, suffice it to say, the entire coaching staff led by JoePa, failed at a fundamental level to protect an innocent 10 yr. old child from being sodomized. Moreover, Joe Paterno himself is a deeply devoted Catholic family man, who is well known for his devotion to and love for his own children and granchildren. In fact, his nickname on campus and especially used by all of his players, ages 18 thru 25, was JoePa. Wow! What a father figure JoePa has turned out to be.

Forgive me, but this reminds me of the Nazis in World War II Germany, who had great fraternal love and devotion for their own children, while at the same time, could cold bloodily, without any feeling whatsoever, brutally torture and murder millions of other parent's children in the Holocaust. Think this is too harsh a correlation? I don't. What does it take for this kind of disregard of another man's children?

Well, we've already said that the abortion mentality has certainly led to a decrease in the value of innocent life, but there is another element here. Remember the age old Gladiator mentality of the ancient Greek and Roman Empires. We have reverted to the same pagan hedonistic worship of "The Games". All other considerations are forfeit.

Our sports players and coaches are paid obscene amounts of money, more than doctors and scientific researchers! Everyone loved OJ Simpson. No one wanted to believe anything bad about the guy ... even when he brutally murdered his wife and another man ... and at the end of the day, he was found innocent! Other sports players who have raped women, and even if found guilty in our court system, were still deemed innocent in the court of public opinion. Let's face it, it's the good ol boy system. And in the court of public opinion, once again, Joe Paterno is being deemed a martyr, as rioters protest his being fired.

Just as in the court of public opinion, abortion is deemed an acceptable personal choice ... simply a matter between a woman and her doctor ... never mind that she very rarely sees the doctor ... now, watching the Friday night riot on Penn State's campus, in protest of JoePas demise as head coach, I'm not surprised that abortion has remained legal for 38 years. With the attitude exhibited by the rioters and the press, it would now seem that the sodomy of children is also acceptable behavior in the court of public opinion ... just a matter between a young boy and his coach. And this leads to another element. That being the overwhelming acceptance of the homosexual proclivity.

Ok, at the risk of being a be a bit of a gay-basher here, let's be honest. It's not heterosexual pedophilia we are talking about. But, again, that's another taboo subject. One cannot call a spade a spade, at all, anymore in this society. We are so politically correct, that we're willing to sacrifice innocents in and outside of the womb.

Any society where morality declines and reverts to barbarism, who pays the price?

Whiskey and Gunpowder Bulls Eye Investing Demography is Destiny

2011-11-13T18:01:00.001-06:00

As we continue, or more to the point as American womencontinue to desensitize their natural reproductive imperative, withbirth control and abortion, a looming crisis is developing across the Westernand in some cases Asian demography.

China is experiencing an unbalancedfemale to male population, leaving much of the young menwithout marriage partners. This creates social and political instability. The"one child" policy of communist China and soon America (if thetotalitarians in our nation have their way) has circumvented God's will to goout and be plentiful. When a government and their citizens work in the Naturaland Moral Law, there is peace and security for that nation, When they do notthere is no peace and no security. Our nation is fast becoming a house ofcards built in the sand of human egocentricity and elitist leadership. This is the natural extension of spoiled baby boomers

Increasingly our brave, our strong, ourproductive, and our successful like Gulliver are being tied and hamstrung andblamed by the unproductive no nothingelite Lilliputians who purport to have a law and an answer for all ofthe woes they created in the first place.

Abortion and contraception are literally killing off ourpopulation, our moral persuasion; it isincreasing our moral ambivalence, indecisiveness, and politicalcontention. Our nation must be viewed holistically. These parts ofour souls, our morality, culture, religiosity, of what issacred (if anything) are internal to the Americanheart and mind, while the economy and the social contract are theirextensions.

Ahh, but Jesus said it much better:"..where your treasure is there your heart is also."

Where is America's treasure? I sayin the dumpsters of abortion centers.

And so in 2005 John Maudlin wrote abook Bull’s Eye Investing.The forward of this book was included in a commentary piece at thewebsite whiskey and gunpowder.

For me this is not so much a book aboutinvesting but much much more about national suicideresulting from eugenics, abortion, and contraception. It is about a war ofspiritual attrition which within America is gradually and purposely being lostby Obama and his sycophants.

You say to yourself ,"Whiskey andGunpowder is a website?" Eh! I don't know.. maybe sumptin to do withcolonial history, but the web site is about:

"Whiskey & Gunpowder explores the crossroads of liberty, finance and moral philosophy. Frankly, we don’t believe these things can be examined separately.....

Here is a taste of this forward (or maybe I should say a shot), that is at this PLACE

John Mauldin, in an excerpt from his book Bull’s Eye Investing, outlines the retirement problems the world faces.

There is no free lunch.
-Milton Friedman

NOW, LET’S LOOK away from the United States, and focus on the rest of the world. If we think the

retirement problems facing the United States are severe, then the facts suggest the rest of the

developed world is facing a major crisis. Over the next few decades, we are going to see a shift in

economic and political power that is simply staggering in its implications. Let’s look at facts first,

and then draw conclusions.

I am going to quote at length from a study by the respected Bank Credit Analyst. Martin Barnes and

his crew at BCA Research have a stellar reputation for having been as accurate as any letter in the

world for decades. They give us some sobering thoughts.

The populations of the developed countries will drop rapidly over the next 50 years, while those of

undeveloped countries, especially Islamic countries, will rise dramatically. (See Figure 11.1, Figure

11.2, and Table 11.1.) Germany will experience no population growth and will remain at 80 million

people, while Yemen will grow from 18 million to over 84 million. Russia will drop from 145 million

to slightly over 100 million. Iran will grow from 66 million to 105 million. Japan will drop to 109

million, while Iraq and Saudi Arabia will grow to 110 million each. Italy will decline from 57 million

to 45 million, while Afghanistan will grow from 21 million to 70 million. read more here

In the words of MargoChanning aka Betty Davis: Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpynight!

The Abortion Issue vs The Death Penalty Issue

2011-11-13T16:55:00.001-06:00

OK, I'm really mad this time. And let me explain that this is not about whether I am personally for or against the death penalty. I reserve my personal opinion at this time, and am not making a statement on that issue one way or the other. That's not the point of this blog, and that's not what I'm mad about. I'm mad about people who equate the death penalty with the abortion issue, because it is the most unjust equation I have ever heard!

There was a phrase coined by a recent Catholic Cardinal, "the seamless garment", meant to connect and blend multiple issues with the abortion issue. How many times have I heard it said that abortion is a "single" issue. Now, today, a gentleman in my own church told me he refused to support our local pro-life organization; because it was not also including the death penalty issue. This really has my ire up.

For those of you who are against the death penalty, that's all well and good, and you're entitled to your opinion; and if you wish you can join an anti-death penalty crusade. I for one am simply enraged that this gentleman, in my own church, would refuse to help an organization that fights to save innocent unborn babies, because he feels some convicted murderer's life should be equated with that of the unborn child's life.

Excuse me! You mean to tell me, that you're going to let innocent unborn babies continue to be butchered and murdered in their mother's wombs, until all the death row inmates have their sentences commuted?

Ok, let's review. A suspected murderer has rights. He is allowed to be judged in a court of law, by a jury of his piers, with legal counsel at his side. Even after his conviction, he is allowed appeals upon appeals ... leading up to and including the actual date of his scheduled execution. On the day of his scheduled execution, he is even permitted spiritual comfort and counsel with a priest or minister of his preference. He is given choice of his favorite foods for a last meal. He is also allowed visits from his family and friends, in order to say his goodbyes. Even at the moment of his execution, he is allowed a final statement of his choosing, by being asked if he has any last words. All along, he is given ample time to make his peace with society, his victim or victims, his family and his God. From beginning to end, ample care is taken to assure that all of his rights are afforded him ... more rights certainly than he afforded his victim or victims.

Now, let's review the unborn baby in the womb's rights. NONE! Let's review, the unborn baby in the womb's legal counsel. NONE! Let's review whether there is a jury to adjudicate the unborn child's' fate. NONE! Let's review how many appeals the unborn child has. NONE! Let's review who the child gets to say goodbye to. NO ONE! Let's review the unborn child's last words. HE NEVER GOT A CHANCE TO SPEAK HIS FIRST WORDS! Last but not least ... let's review the GUILT OF THE CHILD IN THE WOMB .... NONE! THERE IS NO GUILT ... THE CHILD IS COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY INNOCENT!

Whether you are for or against the death penalty, please explain to me how the abortion issue and the death penalty issue are the same, and how one can be equated with the other?

Young Woman Strangles Her Newborn Infant - Abandoned Newborn Infant Protection Act

2011-11-07T12:36:00.001-06:00

Horror of horrors, as a newborn baby boy is found dead and discarded in a garbage can at a Salvation Army store, by one of the store's employees. Weighing 6 lbs. and 11 oz. the baby was born on Friday in the store's restroom, according to Streamwood Police Cmdr. Dan Barnes. It was reported that the mother gave birth to the baby, and then strangled it to death before disposing of it in a trash can.

This is the 2nd baby to be discarded in the past couple weeks, as another newborn infant was left in a shopping bag at a church in Schaumburg on October 26th. But at least that baby had not been strangled to death by its' own mother; who apparently believed that someone at the church would come along and find it. Fortunately someone heard the child's cries in enough time to save it.

Why this young woman felt she needed to, not only abandon, but murder her newborn infant, is a sign of the times in this Culture of Death. Due to abortion, life has become so cheap and disposable, are we surprised? When a mother can kill her child inside the womb, what's the difference killing it outside the womb? The age of abortion has created a mind-set which has relegated the child in the womb to a mere waste product to be eliminated from a woman's body. It's just a short step after that, to considering the child as a "waste product" shortly after it has been born. The child's humanity has been stripped away, so that it no longer resembles anything which would evoke sympathy, even from its' own mother.

The biggest tragedy to all of this, is that today, there was no reason for either mother to feel they needed to abandon, much less kill off their newborn, as Illinois offers a safe, legal option to unsafe infant abandonment. Illinois' Safe Haven Law, The Abandoned Newborn Infant Protection Act, was written to provide a safe alternative to abandonment for Illinois parents who feel unable to cope or care for their newborn baby. It offers "safe havens" for such newborns, with No Shame and No Blame.

The Abandoned Newborn Infant Protection Act says that parents who do not harm their babies cannot be prosecuted for abandonment, if they bring their newborn (30 days old or younger) to any hospital, emergency care facility, police station or staffed fire station in Illinois, and hand their baby over to a staff member, with no shame or blame. After handing over your baby to one of these designated "safe places", you then have 60 days in which to return, before you forfeit your parental rights, and your baby can then be adopted.

Furthermore, when you relinquish your baby at a hospital, you may also be offered medical care and or counseling for yourself. Trained hospital staff members can also help you cope and make sure you understand your rights and options. But if you do not wish these services, you may simply walk away, with No Shame and No Blame.

And YES, you can keep your baby a secret ... as well as safe. Once again, as long as you have not harmed your newborn, you may relinquish your infant to any "safe place" and simply walk away, with No Shame and No Blame. No one need ever know, and your baby will be safe!

It is imperative that people learn and tell others about The Abandoned Newborn Infant Protection Act. Please go here to learn more, and also discover Other States that have Safe Haven Laws ...
www.saveabandonedbabies.org.

2011-11-04T08:47:00.000-05:00

Senate Moves to Overturn Defense of Marriage Act

Respect for Marriage Act Intentionally Misleading

Today the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee will begin debate on S598, the Respect for Marriage Act of 2011. Sponsored by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), the title of the bill is confusing. Using the word "respect" instead of "defense," it sounds very much like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). People might think it is something similar, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Respect for Marriage Act would actually overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.

S598 is supported by the ACLU and gay organizations. It is opposed by some Tea Party organizations, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defense Fund.

Illinois Senator Dick Durbin is a member of the Judiciary Committee and a co-sponsor of the bill. In fact, all ten Democratic members of the committee support the bill, so even if all eight Republicans oppose it, it is sure to make it out of committee. Ironically, many of the 30 Senators co-sponsoring the bill voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

It is still important to call Senator Durbin to let him know how you stand on this bill. Please call our other Senator, Mark Kirk, and urge him to vote no on S598. Ask him to please continue to support the Defense of Marriage Act as passed in 1996.

Only 5 states permit same-sex marriage. In 30 states, such unions are constitutionally banned. In explaining her support of DOMA recently, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) noted that it "was enacted by Congress in order to protect individual states and their laws against same sex marriages."

While S598 is touted as ensuring "respect for State regulation of marriage," in reality it would do the opposite. Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy at the Family Research Council, says, "The bill would repeal both parts of the Defense of Marriage Act so that it would make it much easier to force other states to recognize same-sex marriage."

Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) in Washington, DC, testified before the Senate about this bill in July. He explained that "far from respecting marriage, S.598 would empty the term of any core content" and "would include anything that any state, now or in the future, recognized as marriage." He added that this would have the "real world consequences" of once again allowing polygamy. In the 19th Century, polygamy was recognized as being incompatible with democracy, and anti-polygamy provisions were a condition of statehood for Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma. Whelan added that Section 3 of the Respect for Marriage Act would require taxpayers in states that maintain traditional marriage laws to subsidize the provision of federal benefits to same-sex unions or polygamous marriages recognized by any other state.

Whelan also discussed President Obama's responsibility to defend DOMA under Article II of the Constitution. His refusal to uphold DOMA is not just breaking a campaign promise, it is also unconstitutional. Whelan stated that "an administration may not work to overturn a law merely because they disagree with it from a public policy perspective (i.e. ideology)."

To read the full comments of Edward Whelan as well as those of Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defense fund and Tom Minnery of CitizenLink, CLICK HERE.

Contact information for Senators Durbin and Kirk is in the column on the left. You may also wish to register your opinion on this legislation at the following site: CLICK HERE

Boy What A Tangled Web We've Woven! Vaccinating For Behavioral Diseases.

2011-11-03T14:56:00.000-05:00

Ok, so what's the answer? As a young girl, I remember when the birth control pill first came out. Women in my neighborhood rushed to put their 14 yr. old daughters on the pill, the premise being that it would regulate their menses. I think an underlying motive, was that it would also relieve a parent's fears of the embarrassment and hassle involved with their teenage daughter's possible pregnancy. The result was that these girls, almost immediately, became sexually promiscuous! I do not exaggerate. My girlfriends who began taking birth control pills, lost their virginity ex-post haste.

Now, today, the question is whether or not to vaccinate our pubescent children against a widely prevalent sexually transmitted disease, known as Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). It is only through willful behavior that the disease can be contracted. Today's parents must now decide, as with the women of the early days of the Pill, whether or not they need to give something to their child, which is really a behavioral concern.

First of all, as I can personally attest, my girlfriends whose mothers put them on the pill, were given a sort of subliminal message that their mothers had already assumed their daughter would not remain a virgin. The result was that they definitely did not remain virgins. A similar dilemma presents itself with a parent choosing to vaccinate their child against a sexually communicable disease. Once again, what is the child to interpret from this?

The tangle to this question though is not easy to avoid. Today, more than ever before, even children from the best and most faith-filled families have been succumbing to peer pressure to become sexually active. And even if your son or daughter remains a virgin till marriage, there is no such guarantee with their future spouses. So, with the numbers of the CDC showing astronomical rises in the occurrence of cancers that are caused by HPV, does a concerned and loving parent take the risk of vaccinating a child against possible future behavior, not only on the part of their own child, but on the part of their child's future spouse? What are the risks to this vaccine? And once again, as with the pill, will this choice send a message to the child that the parents have already assumed they will be sexually active before marriage? Oh what a tangled web are the consequences of sin! Yes, let's call it sin, because that is what it is!

Well, I would like to at least give parents one equation here to this question. And that question regards the efficacy of the vaccine itself. First of all, the HPV vaccine has been being widely used without sufficient evidence as to whether or not it is even effective! Moreover, the vaccine has been reported to have caused multiple deaths and other serious side-effects.

Of course, people get sick and some people can die from all vaccines. It's a numbers game. Small Pox was successfully eradicated due to an aggressive world-wide campaign of immunization. I recall as a child, the Polio epidemics, which would keep my mother scared out of her wits half the time, whenever we kids got a sore throat. She was extremely thankful for the Polio vaccines which came out against the disease. The efficacy of both the Small Pox and Polio vaccines greatly outweighed their risks.

So, in my opinion, the bottom line is still the risks verses the results. If parents are going to be forced to decide whether or not to vaccinate their child for a "behavioral" disease, and all the subliminal messages that gives their child, shouldn't they at least be assured that the vaccine's effectiveness outweighs it's risks?

Watch this video...

2011-11-02T15:59:00.003-05:00

It Really is a Mad, Mad World

2011-11-01T09:42:00.000-05:00

Assisted Suicide: A Recipe for Elder Abuse

Next November, Massachusetts voters will decide via ballot initiative whether to allow physician-assisted suicide. The Death with Dignity Act is modeled closely on an initiative passed by Washington State voters in 2008. In states that have taken up these laws, pro-life groups, religious groups, and advocates for the disabled have fought them. Massachusetts is a heavily Catholic state, and Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley of Boston called the act “a corruption of the medical profession that violates the Hippocratic Oath.”

National Right to Life calls the proposed Massachusetts act “a recipe for elder abuse.” Key provisions of the act include that an heir, who will benefit financially from a patient’s death, is allowed to actively help sign the patient up for the lethal dose.

In the United States, assisted suicide is legal only in Washington and Oregon. In both states, the law was enacted through a ballot initiative. In 2010, the Montana Supreme Court’s Baxter decision did not legalize assisted suicide but gave physicians, if prosecuted, a potential defense. A law that would have allowed assisted suicide in Montana went down to defeat in February.

In addition to Massachusetts, pro-euthanasia activists are currently mobilizing in Hawaii and Vermont. Compassion & Choices, a pro-euthanasia activist group, has a new campaign claiming that assisted suicide is already legal in Hawaii. Ironically, assisted suicide bills have repeatedly gone down to defeat in Hawaii, most recently on February 7, 2011. In Vermont, a bill has been introduced in the state legislature.

No assisted suicide law has yet made it through any state legislature. Besides the failed bills in Montana and Hawaii, this year an assisted suicide bill was defeated in New Hampshire. Idaho enacted a statute to strengthen its law against assisted suicide. Earlier pro-euthanasia bills failed in Michigan and Maine.

Since assisted suicide has been legalized in Oregon, there have been reports of cancer patients being denied medical treatments by the Oregon Health Plan but offered suicide drugs instead. People voted in favor of the law because they thought they were giving themselves a right to a dignified death. What they didn’t anticipate was that they were giving health plans the right to cut corners on their treatment.

Since its founding in 1973, Lake County Right to Life has opposed euthanasia with the same conviction with which it opposes abortion. Currently, Illinois law specifically prohibits assisted suicide. Lake County Right to Life will continue to resist any attempts to overturn this law.

# # #

Is Marriage A Right? Let's Examine This Question.

2011-10-31T14:46:00.002-05:00

With all the hutzpah about marriage these days surrounding the debate between traditional marriage defenders vs. those who would like to allow same-sex marriages, I am finally going to stick my own neck out here with a few observations. And to be sure about things here, I have people quite close and quite dear to me, who are of the homosexual persuasion. So, let me make this clear up front; that this is in no way a judgement upon them. Instead, I would hope and pray that they, as well as heterosexuals, better understand a few things here. This is a study of what marriage is, and is not, for both sides.

First and foremost, I would like to ask a question: "Is Marriage A Right?" For this seems to be the crux of the argument for same-sex partners, who believe that they are being denied a certain "right" to marry ... sounds plausible enough. We do not want to believe that our society denies anyone any of their rights. But what is this right to marry really all about? And is it a right?

To begin answering these questions, let's first take a real good look at what "marriage" actually is ... what is the nature of marriage ... who originally came up with the idea ... and what is it's purpose? For I personally believe, that all of our modern society has lost the true meaning and definition of marriage ... and I don't think it just happened overnight. For a long time now, our society has seemed to hold a rather sophomoric view of marriage; one which is not all that different from two kids going steady in school. Then, of course, with the onset of the 60's and the "free love" philosophies, marriage and its' purpose became a complete blur. But, I would say, that the true meaning of marriage had already been being slowly eroded long before the 60's.

The threat to marriage began a while back, with the commonplace acceptance of divorce. To cite a bit of history here, for Christians, divorce became acceptable with Martin Luther's reformation. Luther believed that marriage was not something between a man and woman and God, ie. a sacrament as the Church had long held, but a mere contract between a man and woman, who could make or break that contract at will. Henry the XVIII soon took advantage of this new approach, to rid himself of one wife, and replace her with another.

But we know that divorce was not something new with Martin Luther or Henry XVIII, nevertheless, the Christian world had long accepted Christ's words that "whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery" - Luke 16:18. Martin Luther and all who followed his lead, no longer heeded this particular scripture.

But, even among Protestant reformers and their followers, divorce was still an ugly word which continued to carry a stigma. The monarchs of England, though they were heads of the Church of England, were nevertheless forbidden to divorce and remarry.

So, back to the original question: "Is Marriage a Right"? To answer that question, let's start at the beginning, and bear with me to take a quick look at a bit of scripture here. In Genesis Chapter 1:27, we read: "God created man in his image. In the Image of God He created them. Male and Female He created them." Verse 28 goes on to report, "Then God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it." Finally, in Gen. Ch. 2 verse 24 we read: "For this reason a man leaves his father and mother, and clings to his wife, and the two become one flesh."

Ok, that's pretty clear to me. Marriage is not a Right! In fact ... it sounds more to me like a "Directive"! And what was the "directive" all about? Seems to me it had something to do with the engendering of life. Sounds like God was giving male and female human beings a job to do; one which He had not even given the angels and Archangels! Wow! God was directing we mere mortals to "assist" Him in His great Act of Creation! Wow ... Really! We mere mortals, less than the angels and Archangels, were given the job of helping God create life? Whoa! I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty heavy to me. It also sounds like our ability to create life, had nothing to do with a "choice" on our parts.

So, how does this affect the question of those who believe that same-sex partners should have the "right" to marry? Someone very close to me, recently expressed their great sorrow over a homosexual sibling, not being given the same right to marry, as heterosexuals. Watching her brother struggle with his own homosexuality, she naturally desired for him to have all the same fulfillment of love as anyone. She could not understand how heterosexuals could deny her brother the "right" to happiness in love as they themselves enjoyed. Her heartache was genuine, understandable and deeply touching. And this, I believe, is at the heart of the entire question. For none of us wants to see anyone suffer; especially someone dear to us. As a result, many of us are stumped as to how to help our same-sex attracted friends and loved ones, without sounding judgmental and self-righteous, or worse yet, cause them more pain.

We are barraged everyday with tragic stories of bias against homosexuals and how this has even led to suicides on the part of some homosexual young people. Hollywood and the entertainment industry, has championed the cause of homosexuals, Lady Ga Ga, being the latest heroine in defense of their cause.

Needless to say, this is not an easy subject to blog on, one which I have evaded for quite some time now. That is, until this young girl, who I have known since childhood, spoke to me of her brother, who I have also known since childhood. I would rather have my teeth scraped, than cause them any pain. And in fact, I have written this blog especially in their honor, and to try and touch their lives with some little bit of love and appreciation, while still holding true to God's design for marriage.

I tried to tell my young friend, that it is the view of marriage that is at heart here ... to try and understand that it is not about denying anyone a "right" to happiness and fulfillment, as she felt her brother was being denied. If one understands the nature of something ... they will then understand if it is truly meant for them or not. Anything in life needs to be approached from this attitude. We do not all have the "right" to become rocket scientists ... only those whom God gave this aptitude. There are many vocations and avocations in life, that we may or may not be called to, or cut out for, and this does not mean that we are being deliberately denied a "right" to such.

Each of us has our own unique personality and character and gifts. My dear little friend herself, expressed to me that her brother was much more than his sexual orientation .... and I agree wholeheartedly! As to the question of finding fulfillment in love ... there are many souls in this world ... who for whatever reason, will never find this fulfillment. Homosexuals are not unique from the rest of us, in their human desire to love and be loved. But, there are many kinds of love ... and each love has its' own nature, meaning and purpose.

This being said, is homosexuality the kind of love that God had in mind, when He 1st instituted the marital union? We must each find the shoe that fits our foot, that's all. When one truly seeks to understand the true nature of something, they can then honestly answer themselves, as to whether or not it is what they are really called to.

We all know, that this is the age of "entitlement", where no one believes that he or she should suffer any kind of loss or lack of something. Today's age believes that we can have whatever we want, and do whatever we want to have it. When we hurt because we can't have something, or are denied something that others seem to have, today's age tells us that everything and anything we want, is our "right". But common sense should tell us, that just because we want something, that does not mean we have an automatic "right" to it.

The human heart was made for love ... this is true of everyone, no matter your sexual orientation. But what is the first love that the human heart was intended for? "And you shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and your whole soul, this is the 1st commandment." Mark 12:30. I would suggest, that if we followed this directive first and foremost, we would know the answers to all our other questions regarding our wants, needs and or "rights".

Lady Ga Ga sings: "Born that Way", a rallying cry for homosexuals to justify their orientation, suggesting this is how God made them. I have known people who were same-sex attracted from little on .. yes ... they must have been born with this proclivity, as Lady Ga Ga sings. But, does that truly mean that God made them that way, or that when God first created the world and people, that this was part of His intended design?

Once again, in Genesis we read, "And God saw all that He had made, and He pronounced it good". Here is my question ... Did God create homosexuality? Was homosexuality truly part of God's design? And if one believes that it was not God's design, does that mean they are homophobic? More importantly, if homosexuality was not God's design, does that mean that homosexuals are evil? We know that this is not true. They are not evil. And my little friend's description regarding her brother, was, "that his sexual orientation did not define who he was." I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment. And I am not condemning anyone who has this proclivity. I am simply trying to help them understand that no one is deliberately trying to deny them a "right". Marriage is not a "right". It is a directive from Almighty God Himself, with a specific purpose that He Himself had in mind. And I simply suggest, that those of same-sex attraction honestly ask themselves, if their situation truly fits that design?

And I suggest to them, and to all of us, that first and foremost we should love God, and seek His will in all things. He will fill any and all voids in our hearts, and make our burdens light. God loves us all ... and we need to love Him in return ... then and only then, will we have the answers to all our questions, needs and wants.

"What's Sauce for the Goose, is Sauce for the Gander" Gardasil Vaccine for Boys.

2011-10-27T14:11:00.000-05:00

An old saying from my grandparent's generation: What's sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose" has now taken on a slightly new slant: "What's sauce for the goose, is now sauce for the gander." What does this mean? It means the CDC has now backed HPV Vaccines for boys.

The committee recommends that boys and young men ages 13 through 21, should be immunized with the HPV vaccine against the virus if they missed an earlier vaccination, according to Anne Schuchat MD, director of the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. If this recommendation is formally accepted by the agency, it would, in a single stroke double the number of children who should get the 3 dose vaccine. It is already part of the recommended list of immunizations for girls 11 through 12 and up. In fact, in California, the Gardasil vaccine has now become a mandated vaccine for school children.

The intent on the part of the CDC committee, recommending the vaccine for boys as well as girls, was, according to Dr. Schuchat, a hope for easing the burden of disease on females. Their excuse for the young age of the children being vaccinated was according to Dr. Schuchat, "The age of 11 or 12 is a very good time to be vaccinated - antibody or immune responses are the strongest - and that's well before girls or boys would become sexually active," she said.

How clever! So, for any parents who are offended at the suggestion that their 11 or 12 yr. old child, needs a vaccine for sexual activity, they believe this is a plausible sounding excuse, to settle that concern.

What they don't tell you, is that the HPV vaccine, offered in this country to protect young girls against cervical cancer and genital warts, does not protect against all forms of the Human Papilloma Virus, but only a few strains, which are mostly found in Asian countries.

Dr. Diane Harper was recently given an opportunity to answer some questions about the HPV vaccine, which she herself helped to create. She stated, the HPV vaccine prevented abormal pap tests, NOT cervical cancer. Really! Yet, Dr. Jay Siwek, a professor of family medicine at Georgetown University Medical Center, said that he tells parents the vaccine protects against cancers that occur in boys - mostly mouth and throat (why do you suppose that particular body part?) and it helps protect girls from cancer as well. I wonder who really was the original focal point for this vaccine?

Dr. Diane Harper, who actually helped create the vaccine would disagree with you Dr. Siwek. She goes on to say that she feels the FDA has given a "blanket approval to use Gardasil in males and females 9 - 26 yrs. old without making it clear to parents or males/females that the only data for male cancer preventions is in the MSM (gay men) community, NOT in heterosexual men." Well, then my question is, why are we foisting this dangerous vaccine on our young boys - let alone our daughters? Could there be an agenda here? What specific sexual activities are they really trying to protect your child from ... and why?

The Risk of Postponing Fertility

2011-10-27T12:09:00.001-05:00

Robert Stacy McCain takes a break from his insightful political reporting and commentary to make an important cultural observation:

[Regarding a woman of 33 who describes herself as "slightly old for prime procreating"...]“Slightly old for prime procreating”? As a matter of scientific fact, she’s far more than “slightly old,” as prime childbearing age is 18-24.

It is strange that secular moderns, who constantly lecture us religious traditionalists about our alleged aversion to science, are themselves often ignorant of (or hostile toward) the actual science they claim to revere. Fertility begins to decline after a woman passes her mid-20s and, by the time she is 33, she has a much higher risk of infertility than she would have faced 10 or 15 years earlier.

This is simply a fact and, while all statistics about health risks are based on averages that include exceptions — i.e., Rachel Birnbaum might experience no difficulty whatsoever becoming pregnant at a later age — she probably wouldn’t choose to defy the odds if she really thought carefully about it. But her reference to her “much younger state of mind” and her expressed dread of “the conveyer belt traveling toward adulthood” suggest that her ideas on the subject are not entirely rational.

God help her husband if he ever said something like that, huh? A man who accuses a woman of being irrational is inviting the counter-accusation that he is a sexist swine with a head full of ignorant stereotypes. And in a situation such as that involving Rachel Birnbaum, her husband’s desire to become a father is also at odds with the feminist dictum that reproductive choice is entirely a female prerogative. Men’s parental preferences are as nothing, when weighed against four decades of Women’s Movement rhetoric about female sovereignty in these matters.

McCain's insights are certainly worth reading in full.

Is 3 a Crowd or a Blessing? Selective Abortion for Triplets?

2011-10-27T11:34:00.000-05:00

In North Carolina, Erin and Jennifer Conley, discovered they were expecting triplets with their 2nd pregnancy; their 1st child being a 3 yr. old son. At 12 weeks, Jennifer's obstetrician referred her to a specialist. The triplets, by then, known simply as A, B and C, were all doing well. But the specialist had other ideas about the well being of little A, B and C. She, the specialist, began frightening the young couple with s t a s t i c s @ # % * ^ , in which she recited all the dangers of a triplet pregnancy.

The young couple stated that the specialist gave only negative prognosis, "The glass was always half-empty, never half full", Erin recalled. The young parents would ask, "Is there anything wrong with the children?" To which the specialist would respond, "Not at this point." "But triplets are dangerous, and if they all survive to term, it takes parents more than 24 hours a day to care properly for three infants."

After listing all the things that could go wrong, the doctor gave her "specialist" suggestion: "Selective reduction." She told the young parents, that by aborting one of the infants, there would be more room in the womb for the other two, improving the chances for a healthy pregnancy and delivery. I guess that goes along with the old adage, "three's a crowd."

The young couple, who were not only Catholic, but deeply trusting in God, were devastated by such medical advise. They ultimately demanded that their doctor refer them to a different specialist; one who would be more respective of their feelings regarding their triplet pregnancy. The young couple hadn't done in vitro, so this had simply been an act of nature, or more aptly, an act of God; and as such, the young couple believed that all three of their babies were gifts from Him.

Once again, I would like to inject a personal experience here. As a young woman, one of my childhood friends in the neighborhood I had grown up in, discovered she was expecting triplets with her very 1st pregnancy. The news made the local papers: "Local woman gives birth to Triplets!" My girlfriend, a tiny little thing, nevertheless delivered all 3 babies, with no complications to herself or the babies. It turned out that it was something which ran in her family, as twins usually do. Her grandmother and several others before her, had also given birth to triplets. I recall, that other than it being a news item in the local papers, no one thought of it as some sort of risk, which would require aborting one of the infants prior to birth.

A while back, I blogged on the "reduction of twins", becoming a norm for young women. The method of death for the chosen infant, was a lethal injection to the heart, then leaving the deceased infant inside the womb, to be born dead along side its' living sibling. Can you imagine? One child comes out to be laid in your arms ... the other to be discarded in a medical waste bin. This young couple would have celebrated the birth of two of their triplets, while one little triplet's corpse would have been removed and discarded.

The Conley triplets are now 9 months old, as I write this blog. They, and their parents and 3 yr. old brother are all doing quite well. All three babies were girls, and each one has slowly developed to reveal unique personalities of their own, quite distinct from one another. This means, that had one of them been destroyed, that little person and her distinct personality, would not have been repeated with her siblings. Her own distinct and unique personality and character would be gone. Every human being is a one of a kind ... whether they are one of twins, or triplets, or a single birth. There are no repeats in nature. God has called each of us by name, long before He formed us in our mother's wombs. We are not pieces on an assembly line, to be picked over by quality control.

As far as the 24 hour care, which the doctor warned the triplets would require; is there any child that does not require round the clock care? Four of my own children were born in rapid succession, so that I had 3 in diapers at one time. I do not recall being overwhelmed by this, but rather able to find just how resourceful I was, and how adept I was at time management. If we begin measuring the worth of human beings, based on the amount of care they require, where will that lead? One day, when we get old, we ourselves may very well end up requiring round the clock care. Will this mean a decision to selectively reduce us from the family?

Are You Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? Watch This and Let us Know.

2011-10-24T12:49:00.001-05:00

What do Sperm-Donors and Starbucks Have in Common?

2011-10-24T12:30:00.000-05:00

A recent movie starring America's sweetheart Jennifer Aniston, (who else) tells the story of a young woman who is thirty-something and single, who, fearing her biological clock will stop ticking, chooses sperm-donation as her ticket to motherhood. Treating the whole affair as if it were a wedding or baby shower, she even sends out cutsie little invitations to her insemination party.

Now, the plot thickens, as her long time commitment challenged love interest, switches the sperm on her at the party. Because he is jealous and in a drunken state, he accidentally spills the sperm donor's jar, necessitating him having to replace the sperm with his own; which of course leads to a whole tangle in the plot. The old adage in old movies, was always, "boy gets girl, boy loses girl boy gets girl." Now, it is more like, "boy gets girl, boy switches sperm, boy loses his child and his girl". But, of course, in typical Hollywood style, it is all sorted out in a little over an hour.

Of course, this is all meant to be a cutsie romantic comedy; and with Jennifer Aniston in the starring role, how could we think anything is wrong with any of it. How could America's darling ever be involved an anything distasteful ... or ... dare I say it, "immoral"?

A Swedish study in BJOG, an international journal of obstetrics and gynecology, says that donors are actually a cut-above the average Swedish male: "suffering less from uncertainty, shyness and fatigability", they have "a capacity to take responsibility, to behave in a goal-directed manner, to be resourceful and self-acceptant, and to behave in a manner guided by meaningful values and goals". In short, donors are "stable, mature and well-integrated". What a crock!

Since the fall of mankind, men have wanted to deposit their sperm, without any responsibility attached. Now sperm donation offers men the perfect outlet to spread their "amazing genes", without having to commit to a mother. Jennifer Aniston's commitment-reluctant, but interested partner, leaves her no other option than to go about choosing a sperm-donor so that she can have a child. Obviously, the idea is that, men are not needed to really stick around, but merely sperminators, who spread their seeds like Johnny Appleseed, and then go their way, leaving their fruit behind them.

So I'm trying to figure out how this Swedish study comes up with such glowing attributes regarding these "sperminators". And what about the children of these Johnny Appleseeds? They are left behind like the apples on the ground, by these so called, "stable, mature and well-integrated", donors. What a perfect world for the male ego! How has the feminist movement, with Jennifer Aniston as one of their most popular role models, helped women? We are still at the bottom of the apple barrel.

Of course, in the end of the movie version about all this iniquity, Jennifer gets her man, due to his jealousy over her carrying another man's seed. The hapless would be sperm-donor discovers the child he thought he engendered, is not really his, because the spermatozoa was switched by a jealous lover. In typical Hollywood fashion, all is well that ends well ... Hollywood once again giving normalcy to an abomination!

In Nazi Germany, the Liebensborn program attempted this same type of horticulture of children, choosing the finest Arian male specimens to inseminate young German females. Nazi's hoped to create a new humanity... one free of imperfections ... one in where children could be harvested like pumpkins in a pumpkin patch. Well, today's new world of sperminators has certainly brought the Nazi's vision to fulfillment. Artificial insemination, sperm donors, surrogacy, egg donation, frozen embryos, the Nazi's would have been so proud of this brave new world.

With Jennifer Aniston's movie heroine, becoming a mother by artificially inseminating herself using sperm from a cup, we can pride ourselves that we have taken the Nazi vision to its' zenith. SS Officers, had to actually have physical contact with the female recipient of their apple seeds. But today's sperminator can have his own website on an "online underground", offering his seeds without ever even meeting the would-be mother. These websites and chat rooms have sprung up in order to connect women - mostly lesbians - with men ... aka ... sperminators.

A recent Newsweek article on the growth of sperm-donations, reported that one such transaction actually took place in none other than "Starbucks", using separate bathrooms. Imagine, you can now have your coffee and your sperms to go, in the same convenient paper cups. Dr. Mengeles you've been outdone.

The Tide Is Turning

2011-10-21T08:49:00.002-05:00

This is a very powerful and moving video of Students for Life

ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjq2LK7Wqzw

The Right to Die or the Duty to Die - Coming Soon to a Hospital Near You

2011-10-20T14:24:00.004-05:00

The latest news from the Land of Oz (not the wizard), is that Dr. Oz, aka Dr. Mehmet Cengiz Oz, will host an upcoming episode on assisted suicide, on his Dr. OZ Show. The main focus will be on whether or not you have the "right to die?"

According to Wikipedia, Dr. Oz got his media start as a health expert on, none other than, the Oprah Show. Wikipedia gives a portrait of Dr. Oz as a bright and accomplished individual, though with some very interesting contradictions. On the one hand, he's the director of the Cardiovascular Institute and Complimentary Medicine Program at New York's Presbyterian Hospital. On the other hand, he was awarded the 2011 James Randi Educational Foundation Media Pigasus Award; which the foundation itself states, "is for promoting nonsense". The foundation complained about Dr. Oz's support of energy medicine, faith healing and psychic mediums. Dr. Oz holds the dubious distinction of being the only person to have received this prestigious "nonsense award" for 2 years in a row.

Now, to prepare everyone who has not yet been down the yellow-brick road of euthanasia, this scarecrow, Dr. Oz, has provided you with a helpful survey on the show's website, titled: "Should You Have The Right to Die?" Here are the 4 questions:

The 1st question on the survey is: "Should you have the "right" to die?" The 2nd question is: "Should your family have a say in your right to die?" The 3rd question goes on to ask: "Do you believe that doctors should assist patients end their lives?" And the 4th question is: "Have you discussed your "right to die" with your family?"

Ok, now here's my question: "What is the real reason for a doctor's assistance here?" Is the doctor there to simply give advice about methods of killing yourself? I think most people who wish to end their lives can figure that out for themselves, as is evident with most suicides. Does the doctor give permission? No. It's still your "choice" - the word elect of those who promote murder these days, just as in abortion. So what real purpose does the doctor serve? What is "assisted suicide" as opposed to other suicides?

It is simply a sly way to white-wash something that is inherently and intrinsically wrong. If I kill myself in the privacy of my own home, I'm committing an act, which most of society would find tragic and pitiable. But, having a doctor present while I off myself, is an attempt to normalize it and remove the stigma of suicide. Suicide is then re-packaged as a mere compassionate medical decision between one and one's doctor, just as in the case of abortion. It appears to grant social acceptance, even taking on a seemingly romantic way to end one's life.

Shakespeare said, "A rose by any other name is still a rose"; did he not? Ending one's life is still suicide, even if assisted. You can't change the nature of something with words, or how you package it.

Now of course, Dr. Oz will use the data from the answers to this survey, to compile more justification for his agenda of normalizing suicide.

But, how much farther down the yellow-brick road will it be, before the "right to die" becomes the "duty to die"? Trust me, not that much farther. If and when you become a significant burden, requiring extensive care-giving, interruption to the life plans of others or financial hardships on your family and loved ones, and even an emotional drain, how long will it be before those around you believe, that it is your "duty to die"?

Some notable voices in bioethics believe, that as a matter of what they term, "distributive justice", when people reach a certain advanced age, severe disability, or very poor health, they owe it to society, their families, and yes, even themselves, to make an end of their lives.

Futile Care Theory, aka "medical futility," has been on the bioethics movement's agenda for more than 10 years. If a patient or their family desire life-sustaining treatment, yet doctors feel that treatment is "inappropriate" based on quality of life and/or costs; they may unilaterally withhold treatment - the recent Baby Joseph case being a prime example. Joseph's doctors, supported by hospital bioethicists and administrators, told his parents that they were going to refuse all further life support. The doctors totally and completely ignored and sought to usurp the wishes of the parents for their child's medical treatment. After a much publicized court case, Priests for Life, stepped in and was able to find a hospital that would take Baby Joseph, and give him the medical treatment his parent's wished. But, how long will it be before there are no more hospitals left who will do this?

So, what is the point of Dr. Oz's question: "Should you have the right to die", when the ultimate agenda is not going to be about your rights at all! It is simply the slow turning up of the temperature on the frog, leading to the complete and unalterable denial of your so called rights.

Make no mistake, the word "futile" does not refer to the treatment - it refers to the patient! Our lives and the lives of our loved ones, are going to be relegated to futile and burdensome, if we become seriously ill or lose our mental capacities. The recent words of the televangelist Pat Robertson, where he gives advice for people to divorce a spouse afflicted with Alzheimer's, so that they can move on with their own lives, shocked and appalled many. But the medical profession's diagnosis will not be divorce, but medical murder.

We should all be well advised, the "duty to die" movement is spreading, and it will not stop with the terminally ill.

Children in Danger - Help Only A Phone Call Away

2011-10-20T08:56:00.000-05:00

HB 3027 Will Promote Abortion, Force out Abstinence in Sex Education

Lake County Right to Life joins the Illinois Family Institute and numerous other pro-life, pro-family organizations in opposing Illinois HB 3027, the new sex education bill. The bill is supported by Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, NOW, and numerous other Illinois pro-abortion organizations. The bill will be taken up in the fall veto session, which begins on October 25. HB 3027 has already been passed by the Illinois Senate.

HB 3027 mandates that every public school teaching sex education in grades 6 – 12 must teach comprehensive sex education. Lake County Right to Life has numerous major problems with this bill, including:

It mandates curriculum promoting abortion, stating that it is legal, safe, and parents don’t have to know about it.

It calls for “medically accurate” sex education, but the curriculum misinforms students by telling them that “morning after pills” don’t cause abortion.

It will force abstinence programs out of the public schools by taking away local control and mandating the teaching of contraception and condoms. Public schools in Illinois already have the ability to teach comprehensive sex education if they wish.

It does not follow the Centers for Disease Control recommendations that a) abstinence be prioritized and b) school health education policies and programs be locally determined and consistent with community values. Many communities in Illinois have strong Judeo-Christian value systems and would have their teachings violated by the requirement that contraception be taught to children.

It promotes policies proven to be ineffective in California school programs. Since 1992, California has taught only comprehensive sex education, while Illinois has allowed abstinence education. This has resulted in California having a much higher teen pregnancy rate than Illinois (96 teens per thousand versus 60 teens per thousand).

Illinois will not be stepping forward, but backward in the requirement to teach comprehensive sex education in Illinois public schools. Why should Illinois legislators adopt the failed policies of California and call it progress?

Lake County Right to Life urges concerned citizens to contact their state representatives and ask them to vote No on HB 3027.

Are You A Soccer Mom or A Dragon Mom? What Is the Real Purpose of Parenthood?

2011-10-17T12:59:00.000-05:00

We are all familiar with the ubiquitous term; "Soccer Mom", evoking images of stage mothers intent on their child's successful development. Both mothers and fathers can fall neatly into this category of the stage-parent. In fact, today's parents seem to have more pressure placed on them, than in preceding generations, to raise super-successful offspring.

Recalling my own childhood, there were no soccer moms or dads. We kids played in the back yard, making mud pies, and building tree forts; riding our bikes or playing a loosely organized game of baseball on the empty corner lot. Basically, we sort of grew up like Tom Sawyer, or Huckleberry Finn. Once our chores and homework were finished, we were left unbridled and unfettered, to explore and utilize our own child's imagination for occupying our time and talents. One kid here or there, had the extra obligation of piano lessons; but even these children were left with many hours of unsupervised playtime, with no overseeing parenting. What loads of fun we all had, and I could fill a novella with the memories.

So what has changed so with today's parents, that more than ever before, those Tom Sawyer's and Huck Finn's of yesteryear, are being reigned in with much more after-school activities, sports, music, dance, gymnastics, all in the hopes of creating a super-developed and successful human being? And who does all this super-child activity really benefit? And what really does define "good parenting"?

So, enter the "Dragon Mom" - what is a Dragon Mom"? She is the counter to today's "Tiger Mother's", so dubbed by Amy Chua, author of the "Battle of the Tiger Mother", the latest handbook for parents hoping to guide their children along the path of success, with advice for parental investments which will pay off in the form of "happy endings and rich futures". This must be the world which exists over the rainbow in the Wizard of Oz.

Dragon Moms parent from a slightly different perspective. The biggest perspective is that there will be no worldly return on their investment. Emily Rapp, author of "Poster Child": A Memoir, and a professor of creative writing at the Santa Fe University of Art and Design, writes an article in the NY Times, about her own Dragon Motherhood of her son Ronan. Ronan has Tay-Sachs disease, a rare genetic disorder. Ronan who is presently 18 months old will likely die before his third birthday; after slowly regressing into a vegetative state, becoming paralyzed, experiencing seizures and losing all of his senses.

Emily's article is a deeply moving account of what parents of disabled and dying children learn to focus on. Children who will not be giving their parents any palpable return on their parenting investment, but instead teach the parents the value of unconditional love. Dragon Parents, in Emily's words are: "fierce and loyal and loving as hell." She goes on to tell how these parents learn the value of parenting for the "here and now"; for the sake of parenting, for the humanity implicit in the act itself, though this runs counter to the traditional wisdom and advice, particularly of today.

Parents of children like Ronan, will not have a future to focus on with their child. There will be no moments of their child's success for the parent to bask in. She tells ALL of parents an "inconvenient truth"; Parents who, particularly in this country, are expected to be superhuman, to raise children who outpace all their peers, don't want to see what these Dragon Parents see .... "that none of it is forever."

There are no expectations of children like Ronan. All hopes and dreams of a future must be abandoned, reducing everything to the simplest priority - Love. Dragon Parents love their children for today ... not for what they will become tomorrow.

My take on all this, is that this priority is one which should be the priority of ALL parents - not just those who have handicapped and dying children, like Ronan, but all of our children. We should ALL be Dragon Parents! Parents who love our children, first and foremost, for the sake of the child itself. This is the way that God loves us. Whether or not we can sing and dance, achieve monumental successes, is of no consequence to how much God loves us. Loving someone is it's own payoff.

This is just one more reason why abortion on demand is so prevalent in today's culture of perfection and super-success. The number of Downs Syndrome children, and other handicapped children like Ronan, being aborted has grown to monumental proportions. Today we read of mother's suing their doctors because the doctor failed to diagnose a child's handicap before it was born, so that the mother could have aborted the imperfect child.

So what is the main reason of parenthood? The answer to this question will differ depending upon whether you are a person of Faith, or a secular person. For those of us, who are people of Faith, we realize that Life and the engendering of life is a Gift. It does not belong to us ... we did not set the mechanisms of Life into motion. Life, all life belongs to the Creator. Yet, for some reason of His own, He chose to make us workers in His "Factory of Life". He created the angels, each from His own hand. Yet, when it came to human beings, He decided to take a different approach. He made the 1st humans, whether you believe it was one man and one woman, or a few more, and then put the rest in our hands. We are not to engage mindlessly or by mere brute instincts in the creative act, but to understand and deeply respect the great mystery which we have been privileged to share in; one which The Cherubim and Seraphim were not invited to share.

Now if you have only a secular view of life and the begetting of life, you will only see it from a botanical approach or one of mere animal husbandry. This will, unfortunately, create an "outcome based" life engendering. Children will not be perceived as gifts from God, but as mere products; for which there will be product control and measured outcomes. Children like Ronan and all other little angels like him, force parents to take a different look at the whole purpose of their reproductive faculties. For them, it will no longer be about a perfect product, or a return on an investment .... it will simply be about LOVE ... which is the whole reason God set all of Creation into motion in the first place.

As a small Catholic child, I recall the 1st 2 questions of my Baltimore Catechism: 1.) Who made me? a. God made me. 2.) Why did God make me? a. God made me because He loves me.

A Life Vote Passes in the US House

2011-10-14T14:31:00.000-05:00

Thanks to all the Illinois Congressmen who voted yes on the Protect Life Act.

Special Thanks to Congressman Dold who voted yes on the Protect Life Act.

This Could Save Lives and It Is Easy

2011-10-13T09:09:00.000-05:00

Get your friends to make phone calls to the office of Congressman Robert J. Dold in order to strongly encourage him to vote "yes" on the "Protect Life Act" HR 358. It looks like there will be a vote sometime tomorrow, Thursday, so calls are needed today. Congressman Dold is in the 10th Congressional District in Illinois. He has not committed to supporting this important legislation, and has a mixed record when it comes to pro-life issues.

“During floor consideration, please vote for the Protect Life Act, H.R. 358, and oppose any hostile weakening amendments. This bill will amend the health care reform law to preserve longstanding federal policies on abortion and conscience rights.”
Here's some more information on the "Protect Life Act."

Ensure that all Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) funds are covered by the policy of the longstanding Hyde Amendment (no funds for abortion except in cases of life endangerment or rape/incest).
Prevent federal funds from subsidizing health plans that cover abortions beyond the Hyde exceptions, so that PPACA will follow the policy of other federal health insurance programs.
Uphold rights of conscience related to abortion, ensuring that governmental entities receiving federal funds under PPACA will not discriminate against health care providers who decline involvement in abortion.
Close a loophole in PPACA’s non-preemption clause, so that state laws restricting abortion or protecting conscience rights will not be preempted, and states will not be able to override PPACA’s provisions ensuring that health plans without elective abortion are available in each state.

Congressman Robert J. Dold, 10th District of Illinois

Phone: (202) 225-4835

Ban Abortion Funding - Something Everyone Can Do To Help

2011-10-11T13:29:00.000-05:00

The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to take up the National Right to Life-backed Protect Life Act (H.R. 358) on or about Thursday, October 13, 2011. This bill would correct the numerous abortion-expanding provisions of the federal health care law ("Obama Care") enacted in early 2010. The bill, sponsored by Congressman Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), is similar to the "Stupak-Pitts Amendment" which initially passed the House in 2009, but which was kept out of the final health care law due to opposition from pro-abortion Democratic senators and President Obama.

Please click the "Take Action!" button above to send a message to your representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, urging him or her to support the Protect Life Act and to oppose all attempts to weaken the bill. You can modify the suggested message as you see fit.

To read the October 6 letter sent by National Right to Life to House members in support of the bill, click here. To read detailed testimony by NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson, presented to a House subcommittee in February 2011, about why H.R. 358 is needed, click here.

"When Your Old Wedding Ring Was New" - Alzheimer's Spouses Part II

2011-10-10T13:52:00.002-05:00

Last week I blogged on the televangelist Pat Robertson's comments regarding those who are married to spouses, who suffer from Alzheimer's disease. He advised that husband's and or wives, divorce these afflicted spouses, after seeing to it that they at least have "custodial" care, so they can go off to live their own lives unencumbered by their demented other. His words were, "the spouse you were married to all those years, the person you knew, is just gone, they're gone, gone", relegating sufferers of Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia to mere zombies, living bodies with no soul.

Today, I would like to add to this report, with once again, some of my own personal perceptions and reflections. Christian marriage was always understood to be a life-long commitment, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, etc. Of course today, that understanding has been sadly lost with the onset of divorce, and even Catholic annulments. But I believe the whole crux of the problem lie in the understanding of the word commitment, and what that entails.

When I was a kid, as with many kids, I wanted a pet; in my case a cat. Most kids who want a pet, have very little understanding of what is entailed in the possession of their furry or feathered friend; and more often than not, a parent becomes the custodial person for an animal, whose novelty has worn off with its' child owner. The biggest job of the parent, in allowing their child to have a pet, is holding the child to an accountability of "commitment". Unfortunately, as this many times turns into too much work for most of us parents, it becomes easier to simply take over the care and feeding of junior's pet. This, unfortunately, leaves the child unable to learn a valuable lesson.

Now, carry this lesson on into the realm of human relationships, and the stakes become higher, as the understanding of "commitment" is even more crucial in making decisions regarding a spouse or any other relative. Pat Robertson's remarks not only shock and appall, but horrify, sensitive and responsible people everywhere. So, here is my response to Mr. Robertson's view on Alzheimer's spouses. It is a beautiful example that was shown to me of marital love, and commitment, which I will never forget.

One evening, at a school function for my youngest daughter, I was manning the hallways as the school secretary, helping people find their child's classrooms, etc. It was a family function, so many grandparents were also present. As I stood by some children's lockers, a very elderly couple approached me, with the husband making a request of me. He had his arm around his wife, who seemed completely disoriented though quite content, as he guided her along the hallway. His request was, "Would I mind standing outside the women's lavatory, and keep people from going in, while he assisted his mentally confused wife with her bathroom needs". I of course, was more than happy to oblige him, and stood sentry outside the door, while the old couple went in.

I will never forget this old couple; what an example of love they were to me. This old gentleman who so gently and lovingly held his arm around his wife, sweetly coaching her along into the lavatory, was a truer love to his beloved, than ever I had seen. She was grey-haired, as was he, and she was bent over, and not really comprehending much of what was going on around her. Who knows how well she knew, who this kindly gentleman was, who was assisting her along her way. Yet, he, like some chivalrous knight of old, held her tightly, as if she were the most precious of pearls. He seemed to have no concern for himself, even that she was vaguely aware of him, but only seemed so privileged to be there for the girl he had wed long ago, who had now grown old and was faltering in her steps, and in her mental faculties.

And I was reminded of a song from my parent's generation. I don't know how many of you will be old enough to know it. But here are the simple title and lyrics. It's called, "When You're old Wedding Ring was New". "When your old wedding ring was new - and each dream that I dreamed came true - I remember with pride - as you stood by my side - what a beautiful picture you made as my bride. Even though silver crowns your hair - I can still see the gold ringlets there. Love's old flame is the same, as the day I changed your name - when your old wedding ring was new."

I think that says it all Mr. Pat Robertson.

American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Care Shifts Itss Stand on Physician -Assisted Suicide The Dangers of Neutrality

2011-10-10T11:24:00.004-05:00

If physician-assisted suicide (PAS) becomes totally accepted in medicine and society it will quickly rival and surpass the number of deaths by abortion; and where one stands on this issue, as with any issue, is crucial. If one fools themselves that they can remain neutral on a subject, they may not be able to remain neutral for long; but unfortunately find that it is too late to take a side.

The American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (AAHPM) has shifted its' stand on PAS from oppositional to neutral. What? That's a dangerous shift, and here's why. When Oregon voted 51% for assisted-suicide in 1994, the Oregon Medical Association had decided to remain to neutral, and many analysts believe the Oregon Association's neutral stance on the issue, at that time, contributed to voter support. For at the last hour, when Oregon doctors dropped their neutrality and attempted to oppose the law on assisted-suicide ... it was too late. And when the assisted-suicide law was voted on again in 1997, it passed by an even wider margin. Whoah! So much for trying to stay on the fence about something.

For decades, there has been a stealth campaign, by euthanasia groups, to persuade medical, nursing, social work and other health related organizations, to adopt a position of neutrality on PAS. Why? Euthanasia groups know, it would be virtually impossible to get these organizations to approve assisted-suicide/euthanasia; resulting in the euthanasia movement remaining dead in the water. But ... if these groups remained neutral, it would play in the euthanasia proponent's favor. This is why, the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine's shift to neutrality becomes deadly.

People might very well remind themselves of Shakespeare's famous quote: "A Rose by any other name is still a rose", where he was telling people that a name does not change the essence of a thing. The euthanasia movement's clever ploy to change people's minds on physician-assisted suicide, by changing their name, from "The Hemlock Society" to "Compassion and Choices", should not fool people. Socrates drank hemlock to kill himself. The word hemlock in the old title, simply conjures up images of someone poisoning themselves off .. not a very pleasant title. So by changing that title, using words like "compassion, and choice", the issue is framed in a much softer color. Once again, linguistic gymnastics at play - and Shakespeare would tell us not to be fooled.

The subtle daily sell on physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is ominous. The idea that a quality of life should allow for its' termination, is being sold everyday by the mainstream media and now the medical professions. Dr. Kevorkian's legacy lives on after his own death, which by the way, was natural. He did not die by his own product. But, unfortunately, many others will.

Remember, "quality of life" was the argument used by the eugenicist movement in Nazi, Germany, to justify killing off those they deemed unfit. The term they used was, "life unworthy of life".

Once again, as with abortion, murder is being sold using a play on words. "Choice" is the champion word of abortion proponents. Now, "compassion and choice" is being used to cloak another harbinger of death. And if you are on the fence of any issue, as the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine is now thinking it can do, it may be too late for you or your loved ones one day.

Gone Baby Gone - Fate of Alzheimer Spouses ?

2011-10-07T10:29:00.000-05:00

"They're already gone" says Televangelist Pat Robertson, referring to people, particularly spouses who suffer from Alzheimer's. Pat Robertson, founder of the 700 Club, a Christian television station, told a caller to the show, that a husband who is tempted to cheat on his Alzheimer's-stricken wife ought to leave her for someone new. "I know it sounds cruel," Robertson said, "but if he's going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again, but, you know, to make sure she has custodial care, somebody looking after her." Whoah! This coming from a renowned Christian television preacher. A man who thinks marriage is a sacred covenant? That is until they become sick.

In response to his co-hosts question, of how he reconciled this unorthodox advice with Christian marriage vows - which traditionally promise fidelity "for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, til death do us part" - Robertson simply dismissed those marital promises as inapplicable to the demented. Quote: "Alzheimer's disease", said Robertson, "is a kind of death" since the spouse one loved for decades no longer exists. "That person," he stated, "is gone; they're gone; they are gone." Wow! What does this leave Christian believers, especially those who tune in to the 700 Club, to surmise?

Well, it certainly seem to me, that Mr. Robertson needs to go back to Bible School. I think he is the one who is gone! He has gone far away from his Christian roots, and instead, seems to have adopted a more secular viewpoint.

Quite understandably, and not surprisingly, Robertson's statement sparked a firestorm of criticism and condemnation from Christian pastors, who denounced his words as a repudiation of Jesus" teaching on the indissolubility of marriage and the dignity of every human person. Alzheimer's specialists and patient advocate groups sternly criticized Robertson for perpetuating ignorant stereotypes about the demented.

Where is Robertson's Christian belief in the dignity of every human person, in his callous words concerning those unfortunate souls who suffer the heartbreaking fate of Alzheimer's, and other forms of dementia? Apparently he draws a line in the sand, when it comes to these humans. They are "gone" anyway, in his erudite opinion. He has conveniently written them off, especially when it concerns any vows of marital fidelity. As long as a husband provides some form of care for his demented wife, he can go off and marry again. Gee, how kind to at least provide care for the corpse that is left behind, since the person is "gone".

My question here is this: Christians believe, that a person is only "gone" when their immortal soul leaves their body. Is Mr. Robertson inferring that these are soulless bodies, such as the zombies we see in horror films? Is he inferring that your husband or wife, is simply a zombie?

Colleen Carroll Campbell, a St. Louis-based, former presidential speech-writer and television and radio host of "Fatih & Culture" on EWTN, states it perfectly when she says, "Alzheimer's is an awful disease, one I would not wish on any individual or family. Like the loved ones of the 5.4 million Americans afflicted with this condition, I look forward to the day when a cure will be found. In the meantime, though, I hope for a more modest miracle: a gradual recognition in our culture that the demented deserve the same love, loyalty and respect we accord to the most powerful among us - the same we would want for ourselves, if the frailty we lament in them someday became our own."

I think I prefer Colleen's perception and judgment of the demented, over Mr. Pat Robertson's cold and callous one, which relegates these suffering souls to the fate of zombies, who need no more consideration than the care of a living corpse. Colleen's words should be far more comforting to the spouses and families of these special souls.

Contraceptive Use Double Risk of H.I.V. - Should Women Be Warned?

2011-10-05T14:10:00.000-05:00

Hormone shots, the most popularly used contraceptive in eastern and southern Africa, appear to double a women's risk for H.I.V. infection, according to a recent study. Now in a New York Times article, we read that these findings potentially present an alarming quandary for women in Africa. Why? The answer might give you a quandary.

Isobel Coleman, director of the women and foreign policy program at the Council on foreign Relations states, "If it is now proven that these contraceptions are helping spread the AIDS epidemic, we have a major health crisis on our hands." But, Mary Lyn Gaffield, an epidemiologist in the World Health Organization's (WHO's) department of reproductive health and research said, "We want to make sure that we warn when there is a "real need" to warn, but at the same time we don't want to come up with a "hasty judgment" that would have far-reaching severe consequences for the sexual and reproductive health of women." What? A real need to warn? A hasty judgment? Severe consequences? HIV AIDS is not severe enough for her.

First of all, let's take a look at these "severe consequences" of which Ms. Gaffield speaks. Do you consider HIV AIDS a severe consequence to the sexual and reproductive health of women? I do. But, if you think that's what Ms. Gaffield is talking about, you're slightly off base. The severe consequences to the sexual health of these women which Ms. Gaffield refers to, is of course, pregnancy. Did you guess that one?

A study, led by researchers at the University of Washington, found that women using injectable hormonal contraception became infected at a rate of 6.61, compared with 3.78 for those not using that method. Also, the transmission of H.I.V to men occurred at a rate of 2.61 compared with 1.51 for those who did not use the contraceptive. That's pretty severe in my humble opinion.

Pfizer, which manufacturers the Depo-Provera injectable contraception, declined to comment on the study ..... and you'll love this one .... because they said, "officials had not read it yet." Where have we heard that one before? Huh, the Obama health care bill ... right? Does anyone read anything anymore?

In the minds of all these experts, who don't read things, the main risk to women still remains pregnancy. A New York Times article reports on another "troubling finding", as they put it, which supposedly showed results from the same study, yet published separately, showing that pregnancy itself also doubled the risk of women contracting H.I.V. I wonder who read that part of the study? So, their feeling is, that any warnings against such a popular contraceptive method would only increase complications from pregnancy itself, which they claim includes a greater risk to H.I.V infection. How does that happen? I've had 5 children, and I don't have H.I.V.

Injectable hormones are quite popular. Approximately 12 million women between the ages of 15 and 49 in sub-Saharan Africa, use them. In the United States, that number is 1.2 million using that form of contraception. Ms. Gaffield's comments about making sure there is a "real need" to warn women, gives me "real concern". How many lung cancer cases, heart attacks & strokes were documented before we put warning labels on cigarettes? A kid riding a bike is required to wear a helmet or else his parents will get in deep trouble. So how many women need to be infected by H.I.V or infect their partners, before those like Ms. Gaffield consider it a "serious enough" reason, to warn women about the dangers of injectable contraceptives?

Does anyone consider the real causes of these sexually transmitted diseases? How does the WHO think that they can control people's moral behavior, with injections? I don't get it. Either I missed that memo, or I forgot to read it. But if not reading things these days, is the way to get them passed or passed over, oh well, what can I say?

Of Mice and Men - Latest Version

2011-10-03T14:26:00.001-05:00

Not exactly John Steinbeck's Novela, yet another story about "mice & men" is what we will report on today. You may have come from the apes, but you will be going to, not the dogs, but to the rodents.

The German Ethics Council (Deutscher Ethikrat) has recommended that researchers be allowed to insert human genes into mice, in a major report on human-animal mixtures. Yet they believe in requiring special permission be needed to insert human genes into apes.

The Council issued a report, concerning the ethics of human-animal mixtures, recommending that certain practices be forbidden, while obviously others be permitted. The Council reported on the ethics of introducing animal material into the human germline, which would then lead to human sperm or eggs in an animal, and then implanting those animal embryos into humans. Mice embryos into humans?

German Basic Law, which acts as the country's constitution, states that "human dignity is inviolable." The German Ethics Council report, delved into the philosophical issues that arise when mixing animal and human cells or genes, and how to define what is human, what is animal, and whether mixing the two violates the dignity of either one. Are you kidding?

Yet, the Deutscher Ethikrat has nevertheless recommended that researchers be allowed to insert human genes into mice! ! ! ! Though they believe it unethical to insert human genes into apes, mice are ok? I don't recall Darwinian theory purporting that we descended from rodents? Shouldn't they at least get a closer primate?

First of all, the idea of cybrids or chimeras, (growing embryos by inserting the nucleus of a human cell into an animal egg), is insidious in the extreme, and remains a highly controversial topic. The whole idea flies in the face of any kind of ethics, German or otherwise! But, add the supercilious idea, that mixing us with mice is ok, while mixing us with apes is verboten, is off the charts for insanity! Whose in charge of the asylum here? It certainly seems to me that some of the inmates are loose.

For all those women who believe they've married a rat, perhaps they won't be too far off in the near future. Then, instead of getting a divorce, she can simply call an exterminator.

So Very Long Overdue

2011-09-30T09:35:00.000-05:00

Local Pro-Life Organization Calls Congressional Investigation “Long Overdue”

Earlier this month, the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee launched an investigation into Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), chair of the oversight and investigations panel, requested financial records and policies on reporting of underage sexual abuse. Sterns cited PPFA’s “extensive record of violating state sexual assault and child abuse reporting laws, and of encouraging young girls to lie about their ages to circumvent state reporting laws.” Reacting to the launch of the investigation, Lake County Right to Life President Bonnie Quirke said, “Finally!”

PPFA called Stearns’ request a “politically motivated attack,” “ideologically driven” and aimed at “undermining access to care.” Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) called it part of a “Republican vendetta.” Illinois’ Jan Schakowsky joined a handful of other members of Congress in condemning the investigation.

Quirke disagrees with these characterizations, citing, among other things, last December’s ruling by an Ohio judge that Planned Parenthood failed to comply with state abortion laws. The client in the case, 14 at the time of the abortion, became pregnant by her 22-year-old soccer coach. Planned Parenthood did not report suspected child abuse.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, CEO of Americans United for Life (AUL), also disagrees, stating that PPFL “ignored the heart of the issue, allegations of the mishandling of the taxpayer trust and taxpayer dollars.” AUL’s recent extensive report was a catalyst in the launching of the investigation. The organization noted that much of their report was documented by Planned Parenthood’s own records. Further, audits from several states demonstrated a pattern of abuse of federal funds. “Ensuring compliance with the law is not a partisan issue, and the Committee’s decision to investigate an organization that has been rocked by systemic fraud and abuse shows that Congress takes its responsibility to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars seriously,” Yoest said.

Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, receives $363 million annually from the federal government, none of which is permitted to go toward abortion. Rep. Stearns asked for documentation showing how federal funding is segregated from abortion services. In his letter to Cecile Richard, President of Planned Parenthood, Stearns asks, “If Planned Parenthood thinks they deserve our taxpayer money, why do they feel they can deny our elected officials the right to ask what they are doing with our taxpayer money?”

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List, called the probe a “critical step” in holding Planned Parenthood accountable. “We strongly believe that as Congress and the American people learn more about Planned Parenthood, they will see the urgency in de-funding them immediately of the hundreds of millions of tax dollars they receive every year.”

Debating Abortion

2011-09-30T07:57:00.001-05:00

I've used this line of reasoning, but with little success. Maybe it's the medium. Maybe it's the people I'm engaging. Maybe it's me.

What do you think of this video?

Baby Joseph Dies By God's Hand - Not Man's

2011-09-29T11:09:00.002-05:00

Baby Joseph, who was at the center of an international right to life debate back in March and April of 2011 died peacefully at his home in the arms of his parents. Baby Joseph was a 14 month old infant, who lived in London, Ontario, Canada, who suffered from an incurable neurological disease. This disease everyone knew, would result in his eventual death. Baby Joseph's parents understood that he had no chance of recovery, but, they requested that the baby have a tracheostomy, which is a permanent tracheotomy, so that they could bring him home to die. His sister died from the same neurological disease 8 yrs. earlier. But in her case, physicians performed this tracheostomy, and the family was able to take her home to die.

The hospital in Canada originally planned to remove life support from the baby, over the objection of his parents. The hospital asked the Office of the Public Guardian to assume decision making power over his parents. This caused the case to become a highly publicized international debate over parents rights and the euthanasia issue. The debate culminated in Father Pavone, the Euthanasia Coalition and the Terri Schaivo Life and Hope Network, came to the support of the parents. This led to Baby Joseph being brought to the Cardinal Glennon's Children's Medical Center in St. Louis, Missouri, where the value of his little life was recognized and the tracheostomy was performed.

The debate centered around two issues. (1.) No hospital should be able to impose an end of life sustaining treatment, based on financial concerns, or a subjective quality of life. (2.) Was the issue of the tracheostomy, which was the procedure the family wanted in order to take their baby home to die. The hospital said, that would impose a burden on the parents, and in their best medical judgement, they refused. The question was, "what was the burden"? If it was the baby; then the treatment was being withheld because it was the baby that was the burden.

Keep in mind, that Gabriella Gifford, the Arizona Congresswoman who was shot in the head, received a tracheotomy almost immediately. Tracheotomys are routinely performed for many reasons, but for long-term ventilatory support, they are done for comfort. This is standard procedure in hospitals. It is not extraordinary care.

The parents won their battle to take their little boy home with them to die, and on Tuesday, September 27th, little Baby Joseph died in the loving arms of his mommy and daddy, rather than simply having his plug pulled in a cold clinical environment. He was called home by God, not sent to his death by human elitist ideologies, which devalue human life to their utopian idea of what "quality of life" means. This utopian idea of "quality of life" trumps the "sanctity of life"; and those who consider themselves better qualified, which in Baby Joseph's case was the hospital medical staff, want to call the shots.

Now, we can all ask ourselves the question, "who was Baby Joseph and why should we celebrate his life?" The simple answer is that Baby Joseph is all of us. Remember, Canada has national health care, and this is what we all be facing if the Affordable Patient Care Act is not repealed in total.

"Wrongful Births" - Would You Make The Cut? Should You Have Been Born?

2011-09-21T17:51:00.007-05:00

A West Palm Beach, Fl. jury has awarded $4.5 million to the parents of a child born with no arms and only one leg. Claiming that had they known of their child's disabilities, before hand, they would have aborted him, they filed suit against obstetrician Dr. Marie Morel and an ultrasound technician, for failing to properly read sonograms. On December 6, 2010, the Brussels Court of Appeal in Belgium, ruled that parents may sue physicians who fail to diagnose "serious disabilities" of pre-born children, under the understanding that prior parental knowledge of a child's disability, would afford the parents the opportunity to abort if they so choose. In Tampa Florida, another judge awarded $21 million, to another couple on July 24, 2007, for "wrongful birth" of their second handicapped son. The Tampa Bay Tribune reported that the couple would have aborted the child, if they'd had prior knowledge of his disability.

And so on and so on it goes, since pre-natal testing and legal abortion have combined around the world to create the new legal action of "wrongful birth" lawsuits. In such cases, a doctor or hospital may be sued by parents for failing to warn them that their child will be disabled, or failing to recommend abortion. The damages are purported to be for the child's medical bills and psychological counseling for it's parents. There are also "wrongful life" suits in which a child, or it's representative can sue the doctor for lifelong support.

Lynda Bell of Florida Right to Life commented, "How bizarre that in our nation, not only have we become a throw-away generation, including our babies that are not perfect, but that now we're holding doctors responsible to deliver a perfect baby." She went on to state, "Doctors may feel that they have a responsibility to lead people to abortion just so there's not a lawsuit." Part of another of her statement's reads, "I think there's a very fine line between a negligent physician and having him being responsible for an unborn child, whether or not it is perfect." "Doctors are not god," she said, "they're physicians."

And what of the children for whom these lawsuits were awarded? What will they think when they grow up? Ana Mejia testified that she would have had her son killed in her womb, by abortion, had she been told that he had no arms and only one leg. Her son Bryan is not mentally incapacitated, so one day he will be able to fully comprehend that the money awarded his parents, was compensation for not being able to abort him before he was born. I wonder how that will make him feel?

If ... according to the courts ... doctors are responsible for "wrongful births", then how many of the rest of us might have been able to sue our doctors for some physical deficit we feel we may have been born with? How many of the rest of us who do not meet today's standards of perfection, should have been born? Ask yourself ... if by today's standards you would have made the cut?

Nick Vujicic was born in Brisbane, Australia in 1982 with no arms and no legs. He went on to earn a double Bachelor's degree in Accounting and Financial Planning, and is a world renowned motivational speaker. In his new autobiography, "Life without Limits", Nick tells his story of struggling with bullying, thoughts of suicide, and the unique situation of facing life without arms or legs. His inspiring story, tells of how he rose above these circumstances, and even accomplished more without limbs, than he could have with them. He has been an inspiration to millions of people of what it means to value human life in all forms.

But then when you consider, that even a perfectly healthy child in the womb can be exterminated by the choice of it's own mother, it's just a short walk around the corner to exterminating the so called "imperfect" child in the womb ... and demanding that a doctor facilitate that option.

I recently had to have a mother-daughter talk with my 23 yrs old daughter, who was experiencing the hardship of female jealousy. Because she was born with physical beauty, she has been having to learn how to navigate this mine field of female jealousy. I had to explain to her, how none of us chooses how we are physically made. And how many times, those girls who are not born with the comely features such as girls who are prettier than them, can many times suffer extreme insecurities, which then cause them to resent another who seems to enjoy that which they feel they have been denied. And even pretty girls can feel insecure. Do the parents of these disabled children have insecurities? We look at others many times, and project our own insecurities on them. And parents who would rather abort a handicapped child, than give it life, are simply projecting their own insecurities on their child. A child, who, in spite of his or her handicap, may very well grow up to be as accomplished as any other child, and have a much better sense of him or herself than many others.

How do we look at ourselves and others? Do we measure ourselves and others, with the measuring stick of perfection? If we can write off someone else as imperfect, including our own child, who may write us off one day?

Contraceptives Affect Women's Memory - The Devil's In The Details

2011-09-21T14:43:00.001-05:00

Now researchers have discovered that today's woman truly does have equality with men in a unique way. The University of California at Irvine (UCI) has just reported on a new study conducted and funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. The results are somewhat surprising. ERA has accomplished it's goal more than it might have realized.

According to a study, which appeared in the journal of Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, hormonal contraceptives (birth control pills, patches & rings) alter women's memory. Women who use contraceptives like birth control pills, experience memory changes. Their ability to remember the gist of an emotional event improves, while women not using the contraceptives better retain the details of the event.

The UCI researcher said, "What's most exciting about this study, is that it shows that the use of hormonal contraception alters memories." More than 100 million women use contraceptives worldwide. Researcher Shawn Nielsen stressed, that the medication did not damage memory. "It's a change in the type of information they remember, not a deficit." Remember, hormones were previously linked to women's strong left-brain memory. Estrogens and progesterones are linked to women's strong left-brain memory, that helps them remember things better than men, who encode memory with the help of right-brain memory. Since birth control pills control and lower the levels of the female reproductive hormones to prevent pregnancy in women, researchers are convinced that contraceptive pills can make women's memory similar to mens'. That's scary. Now both of them will forget their marriage anniversary dates.

Women who use hormonal contraceptives "recall" emotional events differently. In our modern world, with school based clinics, and the HHS authorizing free contraception under the National Health Care Plan, some red flags are raised; because the finding that contraceptives change the type of information a woman recalls should be of vital interest to female students, who need to remember details. In particular, they may do less well in situations requiring memorization.

Wasn't there an old saying, "The Devil's in the Details". This idiom, is derived from the earlier phrase, "God is in the details", which expressed the idea that whatever one does, it should be done thoroughly, as details are important. The slight switch in this idiom, from God to Devil, refers to a catch or mysterious element "hidden" in the details; which if overlooked in any plans or schemes, can cause serious problems later on down the line. So, now that neither men or women are able to remember the details, the Devil has no opposition.

Whatever happened to the compliment that God intended between the sexes. Now they are certainly both equal when it comes to their ability to "recall", or should we say "forget", as well as their sexual license. One has to ask if the original inventors of the pill, realized this "detail"? Was it intentional, or a consequence? Was this devil in the details just ignored in their quest for sexual license? Or was there another agenda?

They Need to Hear From You

2011-09-19T11:14:00.000-05:00

Deadline Approaching for Public Comment on Controversial Rules

On August 3, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued controversial new rules. Concerned people have until September 30, 2011 to submit comments on these rules.

These rules include the following requirements:

All new insurance plans must cover all contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs, such as Ella, Plan B and RU486.

Individuals and insurers who find these morally objectionable will be forced to pay for them.

Conscience protections promised by President Obama’s Executive Order and current conscience laws have been ignored.

The religious exemption is so narrow that it will exclude most religious health care providers; for example, Catholic hospitals will only qualify if they stop hiring and serving non-Catholics.

Local pro-life organization Lake County Right to Life is urging its members to contact HHS. However, organization President Bonnie Quirke stressed, “This is not just a pro-life issue. This move by HHS should alarm any person concerned about protecting the right to freedom of conscience.”

Comments can be submitted in the following ways:

Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=HHS-OS-2011-0023-0002

By regular mail to:

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

Department of Health and Human Services

Attention: CMS-9992-IFC2

P.O. Box 8010

Baltimore, MD 21244-8010

Please allow enough time for mail to be received before September 30.

For Express or overnight mail, send to:

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

Department of Health and Human Services

Attention: CMS-9992-IFC2, Mail Stop C4-26-05

7500 Security Boulevard

Baltimore, MD 21244-1850

# # #

Animal, Vegetable, or Mineral - or Human?

2011-09-12T18:30:00.002-05:00

My blog today is going to cover a pro-life issue, from a slightly different perspective. Reading the book, which Terri Schiavo’s family wrote about her, “A Life That Matters”, I definitely have a few thoughts to share with you today, that you might find of interest.

Apparently, when Terri was a child and on into her teen years, she had a bit of a weight problem. She was not always the svelte image we have seen in the pics of her in her later years. Apparently, her weight problem kept her out of a lot of social activities throughout her school years, and though she did not have a complex, she nevertheless shunned the spotlight, only hanging out with close friends and family, or keeping to her room.

Once she had decided to lose the weight, under a doctor’s supervision, she became the physical vision of loveliness which ultimately attracted her husband Michael Schiavo. Of course, her parents and family, all knew that she had always been a lovely girl from within, as well as without; long before her physical transformation. Still, let’s face it; physical beauty always has a lot more ability to attract the opposite sex, than the lack of it. But what does it really attract?

We continually hear the stories of the poor little “Plain Janes”, who sit at home on a Friday or Saturday night, without a date; while the girls with all the looks have all the fun and opportunities for love and marriage. For such pretty girls, it is always assumed that the world is their oyster. Looks are the ticket to having all your dreams come true. Right?

Terri Schiavo might disagree with you. She could tell you, that her transformation from overweight out of the limelight girl, to femme fatale, did not make all her dreams come true, and long before she became a disabled person, her marriage, fraught with trouble, was on the rocks.

Had Terri not made the effort to diet in order to reveal a stunning physical beauty, would Michael Schiavo have ever noticed her - and would her life have taken a different turn? Am I saying she should have stayed overweight? Of course not! Am I making a case against physical beauty? Not at all! I’m simply pointing out, that physical looks are no more a guarantee of happiness and love, than their lack. And I can assure you, that more times than not, they only lead to a greater disappointment, in many women, who think they’ve found their Prince Charming.

Who had Michael loved? What had he loved? Had he only loved a pretty face & figure? Once she was disabled, Terri’s family could still see the beautiful girl they loved! They state in their book, that “their love and commitment to their daughter never changed, after her disability.” She was still the same Terri to them. Why hadn’t she remained the same to Michael, her husband? So you might say, my blog today is combining marital advice along with the pro-life argument … because in my opinion, it’s all connected. For how can we value a person’s life, if we don’t know how to really love? And to know you is to love you; an old saying goes. The abortion advocates don’t want ultrasound bills passed, so that the women seeking an abortion will not see and ultimately “know” and possibly "love" for their child.

So, how well do you young people out there today think you really know the person you want to marry, or they you? If a woman can so easily discount her unborn child, because she does not really know or love it, how easy is it to be discounted by a spouse or partner, if they have failed to really know the “real” you - if they have only fallen in love with an image – a surface? Terri Schiavo paid the ultimate price for not being truly loved by her husband, for who she truly was, not just what she looked like.

All the physical beauty in the world cannot garner this kind of assurance of love. Two people need to really get to know one another before they even begin using the term “love”; for it is a word that is all too easily bantered about today. And my advice to young women especially, is to try and find that young man who comments on things about your personality and character, more so than your figure. Take the time to really get to know him also. Don’t just let yourself be swept away by emotion. Love and marriage are not what today’s secular world would have you believe. Ask yourself some tough questions. If that handsome young fellow you are so enchanted with, and who makes your heart go pitter pat, ever ends up disabled in any way, would you still love him, and stand by him? Do you have the kind of love for him that would see the two of you through anything? Perhaps many of you will quickly answer yes to this question. For when we are in the first flush of love, we often feel that “our love” is a love that will live forever and overcome all odds. I’m sure Terri and Michael Schiavo felt the same way in the beginning of their relationship. So what happened?

The diagnosis of persistent vegetative state (PVS) was invented by proponents of euthanasia within the medical industry to dehumanize the severely brain-injured, making it easier to kill them; much the same way that the child in the womb is written off by such terms as fetus, blob of tissue, pregnancy product, etc. This is linguistic gymnastics, which is being used the same today, as in World War II, Nazi Germany, to eliminate those deemed imperfect or undesirable. Terri Schiavo had become imperfect and undesirable to her husband Michael; so he eliminated her. Whatever love he believed he had felt for her, when she was physically whole, had dried up in the face of her disability.

Now, unless this comes off sounding too judgmental of people with brain damaged spouses, let me say that I’m sure we can all sympathize with a person who is married to an invalid. Michael and Terri were still very young when she collapsed and ended up disabled. One can certainly understand the fear and loneliness he must have felt at the years that lay ahead of him, married to a disabled wife, when he himself was still young. It would certainly be a tough road. It would be a lonely road in many ways; his spouse no longer being able to accompany him through life, in the same way she had when she was physically whole and healthy. Certainly most of us don’t choose to start out by marrying someone who is severely handicapped, except maybe in rare cases. We can all honestly look at ourselves and admit that the prospect of being married to a semi-comatose person, for the rest of our lives, when we are still young, is a frightening prospect. And it’s a sobering thought when considering marriage.

This is really what Terri and Michael’s story is all about. All this euthanasia tripe about the “right to die” is a lot of hooey! It all simply boils down to the fact, that there was a young man, who was facing the prospect of the rest of his life, being tied to a handicapped woman. And the euthanasia proponents, lawyers and judges, and others, took full advantage of his fears and weakness. They offered Michael a way out – one where he would have to feel no guilt about snuffing out his wife’s life - so he could move on with his own. He would be doing her a favor, they probably told him. All he’d have to do is say “she wanted it that way” – that it was “her wish”, not to have to live in a disabled body. This is not to whitewash Michael’s actions either. They are despicable! I am simply saying that, who knows what other road Michael might have ultimately taken, had the devil, dressed up in lawyer’s clothing, not appeared to give him an easy way out? Much the same way the abortion proponents of today, offer frightened and pregnant women a way out. The euthanasia proponents used Michael and Terri’s unfortunate situation, to further their own agenda. Michael’s love for Terri, was not strong enough to see her through “sickness and health”. Ok, many people’s love is not strong enough for this. So do we take advantage of their weakness, by killing off their spouses, in order to create a world wherein only the perfect are welcomed and loved? The book that Terri’s family wrote about their daughter does not put her husband Michael in a very good light; and rightfully so. But we must all honestly ask ourselves, what would we do - or what might we do, if we ever find ourselves in similar circumstances?

All these things need to be considered before we claim to love someone, and that we want to spend the rest of our lives with them. There are many noble stories of loving married couples, who stayed together after one of them was seriously injured and disabled – the case of the actor Christopher Reeve and his wife for one. And I know there are many others out there who are able to love their spouse to a heroic degree through any and all trials.

This is what all young couples must consider before they take that walk down the aisle, or make that impassioned statement of love to another. Be honest with ourselves, and ask, if we are able to love another to a heroic degree. Or will we fail, in the face of adversity or calamity?

A human being can never be a vegetable! Michael did not marry a human being, who suddenly turned into a turnip! That’s preposterous! The term vegetable does not apply to humans, in any kind of way. It is simply a clever play on words, to justify eliminating someone who puts our love to the test. So, before you marry someone, consider that they will be the same person who stands next to you on your wedding day, no matter what physical, mental or other changes they may go through. They will not become an artichoke!

AB499 Minors: Medical Care: Consent Bill

2011-09-09T11:57:00.001-05:00

Ok, so let me see if I have this right. The FDA recently busted an Amish farmer, for selling unpasteurized Raw milk, because the FDA is concerned about the health risks associated with consumption of the raw milk. Sales are illegal in 11 states and the District with other states having varying restrictions on purchase or consumption. The FDA crack down on the farmer came after a year-long federal government "sting" operation.

Today, Assembly Bill 499, however, is on the desk of Governor Jerry Brown in California for his final signature, after already being passed by both houses of the California State Legislature! This bill would effectively strip informed consent from parents in order to allow secret vaccinations of children as young as 12, with vaccines such as Gardasil and Hepatitis B, as well as all future vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases.

So, do I have this right? The government will not allow you to buy raw milk from some subversive Amish farmer, yet it will now take full control of your child's immunizations, with or without your knowledge or consent. How's that for a "STING" operation?

Where are our freedoms, which for so long, we believed we had? Wake up America! We are no longer living in a Free society. We are no longer living a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people". The government has become Big Daddy, deciding what you will eat and drink, and what your children will be injected with, and what they will be taught in schools.

Warning: to all you homeschool parents out there, who feel you are protecting your children from these invasive tactics of the government - they are onto you - and you will not get away with it for long. Do not think that they do not have you in their sights!

Where did AB499 emanate from in the first place? The big pharmaceutical giants such as Merck, have really been getting annoyed with all your parental objections to their heinous vaccines, and so, they quietly and stealthily, lobbied a bill through the California State Legislature, that would strip informed consent from you annoying parents for once and for all, and allow "secret" vaccinations of your children!

Of course, once the bill is passed however, the parents will still be required any legal and financial responsibilities incurred, due to any negative effects of the secret inoculations. How's that for a "sting"?

If it is not too late, by the time you are reading this, to do something about it ... Flood the phone lines to Governor Brown's office to repudiate this bill! Phone: 916-445-2841, Fax: 916-558-3160 - because no matter what your personal opinions about immunizations may be, allowing children to be "secretly" vaccinated without a parent's knowledge or consent, is clearly a violation of the moral dignity of a Free Society! Act Now!

Russian Roulette, Tolerance, Politically Correct and the Blood Supply

2011-09-08T11:21:00.000-05:00

In 1985, the AIDS epidemic began decimating large numbers of homosexuals, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) instituted a rule that homosexual men could not be blood donors. The FDA's official policy on blood donations from men who have had sex with men is presently, and always has been since 1985, No. Over the years, the FDA has held fast against pressure and lobbying efforts to rescind the rule. It is a well-known fact that men who have sex with other men, including gay and bisexual men, have a HIV infection rate 60 times higher than that of the general population. This is not our statistic. It is the FDA's.

Now, here comes Russian Roulette. There is no test that can pick up a new HIV infection in the blood with 100% accuracy. This is because blood is often pooled, so many people may be at risk from a single infected donor. Now, enter Senator Kerry who, in June of 2010, went over the FDA and sent a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which is the parent agency of the FDA. In his tome, Senator Kerry complained that by keeping discriminatory policies on the books and denying willing donors the opportunity to help others, the ban should be lifted. Anyone reading this blog will realize why the gun is loaded. Hopefully, Homeland Security will weigh in on this.

Kerry's letter was signed by some of Illinois' "finest." I don't think that Mike Quigley (D- Chicago), or Jan Schakowsky (D-Chicago) believe the ban should be lifted because of any blood shortage, but because they want to continue their support and lobby for the homosexual agenda. These two players are also prominent in the marriage debate, both supporters of same sex marriage.

Our own Illinois Senator Durbin also signed on to Senator Kerry's letter to the HHS. This issue, like all issues, is being presented as a discriminatory policy kept on the books to deny willing donors the opportunity to help others. Does this rhetoric sound familiar? Does playing with a loaded gun sound familiar? To think that 40 members of the House and 17 members of the Senate would willing put this nation's health at GRAVE risk. Remember Arthur Ashe, the only black man ever to win the singles title at Wimbledon, the U.S. Open and the Australian Open, who contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion, as well as 10,000 hemophiliacs who died in the U.S. alone.

Pontificating Senator Kerry, in his frenzy to save humankind from a lack of blood, said, "Not a single piece of scientific evidence supports the ban. A law that was once considered medically justified is simply outdated and needs to end." Senator Kerry also notes that major professional health organizations have come down on the side of overturning the gay blood ban. Senator Kerry writes, "the three largest blood organizations in our country-the American Red Cross, America's Blood Centers and AABB (formerly the American Association of Blood Banks) - all agree calling the ban medically and scientifically unwarranted."

Illinois, especially, should be concerned. After all, we have examples of what lifting the ban might produce nationwide. Late in 2007, the media reported on a troubling case in Chicago. Four patients who received organ transplants in Chicago area hospitals contracted hepatitis and the AIDS virus from one donor who was medically identified as a person who lived "a high risk lifestyle." Later, it was confirmed that this donor's 'high risk lifestyle" was homosexual.

Physicians knew that the donor of the diseased organs had engaged in homosexual sex. However, these doctors weighed the test results and lifestyle risks against the loss of organs. The organs won and the patients lost. A lawsuit has resulted. The case revolves around the CDC guidelines which were violated twice. The first violation was not fully informing the recipient of the organ about the level of risk. The second violation was not testing the recipient for HIV. This is why the FDA reaffirmed their ban on homosexual blood donation. The ban isn't limited to homosexuals. It restricts other "high risk" categories such as prostitution and IV drug use. These restrictions are in place to minimize the risk that HIV or other infectious agents are injected or introduced into our blood supply.

The Department of HHS, in responding to Senator Kerry and Representative Quigley, identified 4 areas of study to pursue before the regulatory ban on gay men donating blood can be lifted.

This has nothing to do about health or a blood shortage, but everything to do about normalizing homosexuality. The battle continues.

Slave Traffick and America

2011-09-07T09:36:00.001-05:00

Obama and Slave Trafficking

Human trafficking is modern-day slavery, where immigrants are forced into prostitution or slave labor. Since 2000, with the passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), the Department of Health and Human Services has operated anti-trafficking programs, providing them through nonprofit partner organizations. From the beginning, faith-based organizations were in the forefront of these efforts, instrumental in developing ATIP (Anti-trafficking in Persons Program) and providing a large percentage of services. Now changes in HHS grant requirements will exclude some of these very organizations from participating in the programs.

Between 14500 and 17500 victims are trafficked in the U.S. annually, about 1/3 of them children. Coalition partners identify victims, raise public awareness and provide services such as food, shelter, legal assistance, income assistance, mental health services, English language training, employment assistance and health care.

According to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, “The Obama Administration is effectively cutting off funding to religious groups unless they are willing to endorse abortion.” Organizations that serve trafficking victims but who are unwilling to provide abortion referrals or drugs that cause abortions may still apply for a grant, but “strong preference” will be given to those who give abortion referrals. Current faith-based coalition partners working with HHS include the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, The Samaritan Woman, Cyrus International, No Silence Now, Covenant House and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Ironically, HHS’s Anti-trafficking in Persons Program acknowledges that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has been a vital partner in the anti-trafficking efforts. Since 2002 the organization has provided services and advocated for victims. In 2006, HHS awarded the master contract to USCCB, which created a system for delivery of services throughout the country. USCCB has developed a network of over 100 partner organizations.

Jonathan Imbody at Freedom2Care notes that “This grant stipulation appears designed to precisely exclude pro-life, faith-based organizations. Besides violating the conscience rights of faith-based organizations that Congress voted to protect when approving legislation and funding to fight trafficking, this discrimination also stands to eliminate proven effective providers of aid to human trafficking victims such as the Salvation Army and Catholic Relief Services.”

According to Bob Laird of Human Life International, “By blocking faith-based organizations from receiving these grants, the Obama administration opens the door for groups such as Planned Parenthood to provide medical care to victims.” Ironically, Planned Parenthood has been caught in recent undercover investigations offering to cooperate with traffickers.

Important Information on Vaccines Derived From Aborted Fetuses

2011-09-02T12:08:00.002-05:00

For over thirty years pharmaceutical companies in this country have been producing vaccines derived from tissues of aborted fetuses; a fact that came to light when several Catholic newspapers began publishing articles on the morality of using the vaccines.

During the Rubells epidemic of 1964, some doctors began advising pregnant women, who had possibly been exposed to Rubella, more familiarly known as German Measles, to abort their babies. I myself, after giving birth to my 2nd child, in 1975, was told by my doctor, that I needed a Rubella vaccination, because I had never been immunized against the disease. After the nurse administered the vaccine, only then did my doctor inform me, that if I became pregnant within the next 3 - 4 months, I would have to abort, because my child would be infected with German Measles. He sternly warned me, that my child would be born severely disabled, blind and or deaf, if I became pregnant within the next 3 months after the inoculation. I was devastated and terrified. Long story short, I did, in fact, become pregnant within 3 months of my 2nd child's birth; the child being born completely normal, and today she has given me 3 healthy grandchildren. This was simply by the grace of God, in whom I placed my trust.

Now, today, I have just learned, what, specifically, I was inoculated with. After the Rubella epidemic of 1964, a virus strain was developed and known in the science world, as RA/27/3, where R=Rubella, A=A, 27=27th fetus tested, 3=third tissue explant. Now, that is a mouthful, so I will sum it up. Basically a vaccine was created using the tissue of aborted infants. Great! I was inoculated with aborted fetal DNA! My doctor sort of left that part out.

Would it surprise you to know that prior to the introduction of this MMR vaccine, which was produced using fetal cells, the rate of autism in the United States was 1 in 10,000? That percent has dramatically increased, coinciding with the state mandated vaccine. Another autism rise, occurred in 1995, when the chickenpox vaccine, also using aborted fetal cell lines was introduced in the US market that same year. Other countries, which introduced these aborted fetal vaccines, also showed a dramatic increase in the cases of autism.

Altogether, there are three vaccines which were produced solely from abortion and to date are: Chicken Pox - Hepatitis A - Rubella. Other abortion tainted vaccines are: Mumps - Measles - Poliovax.

The good news is, here is a list of the "UNTAINTED" vaccines being newly on the market, with phone numbers, which your doctor can call to order a single dose for you or your child. I would advise writing these numbers down, and having your doctor call before you or your child's next vaccination.

Polio Ipol or Orimune (Oral Dosage) Both are Untainted - call 1-800-822-2463

Rabies RabAvert - Untainted - call 1-800-244-7668

Mumps - MUMPSVAX - Untainted - call 1-800-422-9675

Measles - ATTENUVAX - Untainted - call 1-800-422-9675

Flu - Request your doctor to inoculate you with any of the new Flu vaccines being made by Aventis Pasteur and Wyeth Ayerest. These do not use aborted fetal tissue.

Most of the public is completely unaware of what is being injected into ourselves and our children today with vaccinations. It is our responsibility to educate ourselves and take the appropriate action to protect ourselves and our children, and the health of future generations. To start educating yourself, contact: The Campaign for Ethical Vaccines - http://www.cogforlife.org - Or you can write to -
Children of God for Life, 2130 Catalina Dr., Clearwater, Florida 33764
Or call: (7247) 538-5558 or you can call Lake County Right to Life at 847-223-7022.

Rainbow - Not The Trout - Scholarship

2011-08-31T14:38:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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