Friday, March 8, 2013

Sad

10 eye-opening quotes from Planned Parenthood’s founder

Margaret Sanger has been lauded by some as a woman of valor, but a closer look reveals that Planned Parenthood’s audacious founder had some unsavory things to say about matters of race, birth control, and abortion. An outspoken eugenicist herself, Sanger consistently promoted racist ideals with a contemptuous attitude. Read on to learn why Planned Parenthood hides behind a false memory of Sanger, and why, despite her extraordinarily prolific writing career, one rarely sees her quoted by Planned Parenthood leaders and apologists.
The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.

Margaret Sanger
Margaret Sanger
Woman and the New Race, ch. 6: “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families.” Here, Sanger argues that, because the conditions of large families tend to involve poverty and illness, it is better for everyone involved if a child’s life is snuffed out before he or she has a chance to pose difficulties to its family.
[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
Plan for Peace” from Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108)
Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies… and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit…
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.
“America Needs a Code for Babies,” 27 Mar 1934
Give dysgenic groups [people with "bad genes"] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.
April 1932 Birth Control Review, pg. 108
Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.
Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.
We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.  The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.
A woman’s duty: To look the whole world in the face with a go-to-hell look in the eyes… to speak and act in defiance of convention.
The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1
[The most penetrating thinkers] are coming to see that a qualitative factor as opposed to a quantitative one is of primary importance in dealing with the great masses of humanity.
Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Here, Margaret Sanger speaks on her eugenic philosophy – that only the types of “quality” people she and her peers viewed as worthy of life should be allowed to live.
Such parents swell the pathetic ranks of the unemployed. Feeble-mindedness perpetuates itself from the ranks of those who are blandly indifferent to their racial responsibilities. And it is largely this type of humanity we are now drawing upon to populate our world for the generations to come. In this orgy of multiplying and replenishing the earth, this type is pari passu multiplying and perpetuating those direst evils in which we must, if civilization is to survive, extirpate by the very roots.
The Need for Birth Control in America (quoted by Angela Franks.)
Women of the working class, especially wage workers, should not have more than two children at most. The average working man can support no more and and the average working woman can take care of no more in decent fashion.
“Family Limitation,” eighth edition revised, 1918

Can't Read but...


Advocacy Witness and Education



          Chicago Schools Will Require
            Sex-Ed for Kindergarteners

No - your eyes do not deceive you! CNSNews.com reports that a new policy has been created, in part, with the consultation of - none other than - Planned Parenthood of Illinois, which will require Chicago Public School students from kindergarten and up to receive sexual health education.

According to the Chicago Public Schools website, the new policy passed last week, requires "minimum instructional minutes" for students (define minimal)
and instructional material tailored around age-appropriateness (who determines this age appropriateness?) along with "medically accurate information" (whose criteria of medically information?)


Chicago Public Schools CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett made the statement; "It is important that we provide students of all ages with accurate and appropriate (there's that word again)
information so they can make healthy choices in regards to their social interactions, behaviors, and relationships." (Well that certainly opens a Pandora's Box of possibilities doesn't it?)


Ms. Byrd-Bennett continued, "By implementing a new sexual health education policy, we will be helping them to build a foundation of knowledge that can guide them not just in the pre-adolescent and adolescent years, but throughout their lives."   (What type of "foundation and knowledge is Ms. Byrd-Bennett talking about here - and who decides the appropriateness of said information?)

Well - according to the Chicago Public Schools website, the new policy was developed by the Chicago Public School Office of Student Health and Wellness (OSHW). OSHW has been in consultation with various stakeholder groups for feedback and recommendations in developing the policy.
(Though it does not appear that any parents were consulted - or even considered as - "stakeholders" in their child's lives.)


)Among these stakeholders in your children's welfare, were Mikva Challenge, Chicago Department of Public Health, Planned Parenthood of Illinois
(what a surprise there), University of Illinois Chicago and Illinois Caucus for Adolescdent Health and CPS high school students.  (Do you feel a whole lot better yet?) 


Anyway, CPS stated that the policy, which will replace the district's previous 2008 Family Life and Comprehensive Sexual Health Education Policy, "will set more 'modern' standards." (The dictionary definition of the word 'modern' as a noun: a person who advocates or practices a departure from traditional styles or values.) (I think we know where they're going with this).

CPS goes on to expound on these "modern standards": "Younger students will receive family life instruction that was also in the 2008 policy.

"For K-4 students, instruction will center on anatomy and physiology, reproduction, healthy relationships and personal safety," (and they're not talking about looking both way before crossing the street).

"For example, younger students in this group will focus on the family, (what definition of family?)
Next - feelings and appropriate and inappropriate touching will be a part of this lesson plan. Students in the fourth grade will learn about puberty, including the physical, social and emotional changes that accompany it, and the causes and transmission of HIV infection." (We've come a long way from learning to cover our mouth when we cough, and making sure our hands are washed before we eat and - that's how you define "modern")


"For older children in grades 5-12, instruction will include information "appropriate" (there's that word again)
for each grade on human reproduction, transmission and prevention of HIV/AIDS and other sexually-transmitted infections (STIs), healthy decision-making, and naturally - "sexual orientation and bullying" (since in the "modern" "social" evolution, those two things naturally go together right?)  Last but not least - this "thoroughly modern" course will include lessons on contraception - "including abstinence!" (This begs the question - if they simply taught abstinence only - just think how many class hours could be saved on teaching contraception, HIV transmission, sexual orientation etc. - which might help the taxpayers pocketbook, as well as save your child's life)


CPS stated: "The policy conforms to the Mayor's Healthy Chicago public health agenda and aligns with and supports priorities in President Obama's HIV/AIDs strategy."   (Since - President Obama is the main "Stakeholder" in your children's lives after all.)

An Illinois Tale




Today a mobile ultrasound provider filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Elgin over its new zoning restriction which effectively prevents many women from obtaining free reproductive health services.

For nearly two years, TLC Pregnancy Services has provided the women of Elgin, particularly high-school age girls, with free pregnancy information, testing, and ultrasound care through its mobile ultrasound facility.

"Why should young women in Elgin, who may have nowhere else to turn, be deprived of free medical services and support?" said Noel W. Sterett, an attorney with the Mauck & Baker law firm, which represents TLC together with Alliance Defending Freedom. "Pregnancy information and support, which TLC makes accessible free of charge, are critical to young women facing an unplanned pregnancy."

The two locations, JB's Pub & Bar, approximately one block from the school, and the Evangelical Covenant Church, adjacent to Elgin Larkin High School, regularly made their parking lots available to support TLC's services to the young women of Elgin. In just two years, TLC reports that nearly 200 women visited the mobile facility to receive free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, prenatal vitamins, and pregnancy health care information.

"We want to support and empower these young women by allowing them to see their babies through ultrasound images and help them make informed decisions regarding their pregnancy," said TLC's Executive Director Vivian Maly.

Last summer, Elgin moved to shut down TLC's mobile facility for the rest of the year at both locations. Records indicate that, in August, Police Chief Jeffrey Swoboda, at the request of city council member Anna Moeller, boarded the mobile facility while parked at JB's and ordered TLC's ultrasound technician, Jane DeFily, to "cease and desist" her activity. The officer informed DeFily that a certain city councilperson had driven by and described the mobile facility as an "eyesore."

Upon further investigation, TLC discovered that the city council had just amended its zoning code in June in a way that classified the mobile facility as a "temporary land use" limited to only four uses per year at each location. When TLC attempted to renew its permit, it was told that no further permits would be issued in 2012. Since Elgin shut TLC mobile services down, it has been receiving calls from young women looking for the mobile facility and not finding it in the city during their time of need.

Details of the matter are available here: mauckbaker.com/Content/11178/347712.pdf 

Redefining Marriage and Religious Liberty

                                                           Religious Liberty





Disagreements and projections abound in the dialogue about marriage and its redefinition to include
same-sex couples. But both sides agree on one issue: redefining marriage significantly jeopardizes religious freedom—the first liberty upon which our nation was founded.

The convergence of several factors creates this unavoidable clash between religious liberty and redefining marriage. First, the vast majority of religious adherents in America believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. And because marriage is a core component of religious convictions—indeed, many spiritual traditions treat it as a holy sacrament—people of faith are not likely to change or disregard their views on this central question of conscience.

Second, marriage permeates our law and culture. Thus countless situations will require all citizens, including those who are religious, to affirm or facilitate a fundamentally redefined understanding of marriage.

Third, if the government declares that same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions equally constitute marriages, the law punishes and stigmatizes as “discriminatory” and “irrational” those who publicly espouse a view or conduct themselves in a manner that adheres to the traditional understanding of marriage.

History illustrates the persecution of, and an absence of tolerance for, those who engage in what the law has proclaimed to be irrational discrimination. The freedom of the religious faithful—particularly their freedom to participate in the public square—will thus be sacrificed in a society whose laws embrace a redefined view of marriage
.
Legal scholars who favor redefining marriage agree that this religious-liberty conflict is real. Chai R. Feldblum, a law professor at Georgetown University and current EEOC commissioner, believes that advocates for redefining marriage have incorrectly “downplayed the impact of such laws on some people’s religious beliefs.” Renowned religious-liberty professor Doug Laycock and many others agree that conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious freedom are inevitable.
This crisis of conscience is not just a matter of legal theory; it is confirmed by real-world examples.
Laws redefining marriage have forced religious organizations to shutter their foster and adoptive ministries because they are unable to place children with same-sex couples. Among other examples, this senseless religious intolerance occurred immediately following the redefinition of marriage in the District of Columbia, even though many other foster and adoption agencies were willing and able to place children with same-sex couples.

After a court redefined marriage in Massachusetts, public schools began teaching young elementary-school students that same-sex marriage is worthy of celebration. Parents who objected for religious reasons asked to excuse their children from these lessons. Yet a court denied parents even this modest religious protection, stating that because “Massachusetts has recognized gay marriage under its state constitution, it is entirely rational for its schools to educate their students regarding that recognition.”
Redefined marriage laws have also compelled organizations with deeply held beliefs about marriage either to recognize the same-sex unions of their employees or to stop providing spousal benefits to all employees. In the District of Columbia, a Catholic organization terminated benefits to all of its employees’ spouses just so that it could continue to operate consistently with the dictates of its faith. And in New York, an employee of a Catholic hospital sued her employer demanding that it recognize her same-sex relationship and provide benefits to her partner.

Additionally, laws redefining marriage have also forced public servants with sincere religious convictions about marriage to resign from their positions. In New York, at least two municipal clerks suffered this fate. Similarly, in Saskatchewan, the courts refused to safeguard the conscience rights of marriage commissioners, despite the fact that the province had more than 370 marriage commissioners, most of whom did not object to presiding over a same-sex ceremony.
All of these examples, which are but a few of the many that could be cited, illustrate the bleak prospects for conscience rights and religious tolerance in a culture that embraces genderless marriage.
Sound logic, scholarly consensus, and recent experience all demonstrate that redefining marriage presents a significant threat to religious liberty. We as a society thus face a crossroads and must decide whether to change marriage to satisfy the demands of a few despite sacrificing the religious freedom of many. We should collectively choose to affirm marriage, decline to deviate our course, and continue along the road where religious liberty—a bedrock of our civilization—may flourish.
Source: Townhall on Line

Great Global Victory



 The War on HIV
One of the great global-health triumphs
By Patrick Brennan
 
Outside an HIV clinic in Nyagasambu, Rwanda

   
 
This week, the world was rocked by the news that an infant born in Mississippi with HIV has apparently been cured: The child tested positive for the disease several times in the first month after her birth, while she was receiving aggressive antiretroviral (ARV) treatment, but now, at the age of 23 months, she shows no sign of HIV.

This development points to a hopeful way forward for infants who contract HIV during gestation or at birth, but almost all of them live not in Mississippi, but in places like Mali and Namibia. Yet thanks to the United States government and private benefactors, prompted by President George W. Bush, many of those children and their mothers do have access to some HIV/AIDS treatment programs.


Just a decade ago, before President Bush inaugurated the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), it was considered impractical and unaffordable to provide the world’s poor with HIV drugs. But because the U.S. has implemented PEPFAR so widely, driving down the cost of the drugs dramatically, whatever treatments come out of the Mississippi case should now be feasible in areas like southern Africa, where the HIV pandemic still rages.

Essentially, a pregnant woman who is diagnosed as being HIV-positive is treated with especially high doses of ARVs, weakening the presence of the virus in her system and making her less likely to transmit it to her child via bodily fluids. Because of this treatment, mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) is now very rare in wealthy nations — only 100 to 200 American children per year are born with the virus.

In the Mississippi case, because many risk factors were present, the doctor decided to begin treating the child with HIV drugs just 31 hours after birth. This appears to have to knocked out the virus for good (even though the mother took the baby out of the doctors’ care after about twelve months). It seems likely that this will become a plausible treatment in wealthy countries in the rare case when MTCT still occurs. The most obvious implication for the developed world, in fact, is that more accurate and quicker testing of babies born to HIV-positive mothers is needed, to detect whether the preventive measures have failed.

But such transmissions remain heartbreakingly common in the developing world — globally, hundreds of thousands of babies every year are born infected with HIV, and some who escape pre-natal transmission acquire the virus soon afterward via breast feeding by an infected mother. Many poor mothers still don’t know they are infected; even if they do, they don’t have regular access to ARVs during pregnancy, and don’t receive a regimen of drugs. Without that dosage of drugs around birth, the odds of passing on the virus are as high as one in two.

But many impoverished women in Africa and elsewhere do receive some pharmaceutical treatment, and these programs are expanding rapidly, thanks to Western generosity. If it weren’t for the programs already implemented and the progress made, the discovery in Mississippi would be as meaningless to the vast majority of AIDS victims as ARVs were before President Bush took action.
For years, the twin totems of sexual tolerance and cost effectiveness meant that the West’s approach to the HIV/AIDS pandemic was to hand out condoms, withhold judgment about risky behavior, and watch Africans die.

That began to change when PEPFAR began investing billions of dollars in treatment programs around the world, but concentrated in southern Africa. Actual treatment for HIV/AIDS had been considered completely unaffordable in the developing world. But the U.S. government went to the multinational pharmaceutical firms that Western liberals had been demonizing for years, and offered to begin buying billions of dollars’ worth of drugs, for millions of new patients, in exchange for dramatically lower drug prices in African markets and quicker availability of generics. Unsurprisingly, the corporations agreed. Simultaneously, the government of South Africa, which is home to about a quarter of the world’s HIV victims, finally admitted — under pressure from domestic activist groups — that AIDS drugs do in fact work. In doing so, the country’s largest party, the African National Congress, had to let go of an anti-colonialist strain of denialism about the causes and treatment of HIV, which the U.N. repeatedly offered president Thabo Mbeki platforms to espouse.

Source National Review on Line

A Real Life Horror Story

 

Philadelphia Horror: The trial of accused baby-killing monster Kermit Gosnell

 
By Michelle Malkin  •  March 4, 2013 10:18 AM 
 
Jury selection begins today in the trial of Philadelphia late-term abortionist and accused serial infanticide Dr. Kermit Gosnell. He faces charges of first-degree murder and a potential death sentence for allegedly killing seven infants born alive and viable after their mothers had abortions.
As background, I’m reprinting my January 2011 column/blog post on the case. To conquer evil, we must confront evil, name it, and combat it.


The “fetal material”-stuffed freezer at Philadelphia’s “Women’s Medical Society”
The mainstream news reports about Philadelphia’s serial baby-killer Kermit Gosnell and his abortion clinic death squad only scratch the surface of his barbaric enterprise. You must, must, must read the entire, graphic, 281-page grand jury report (embedded after my column below) to fully fathom the systematic execution of hundreds of (not just seven) healthy, living, breathing, squirming, viable babies — along with an untold number of mothers who may have lost their lives in his sick, grimy chamber of horrors as well. It is explicit. It is enraging. It will haunt you.
Ask yourself why you are not hearing about which root causes and whose rhetoric are to blame for this four-decades-long massacre — just the tip of a blood-soaked iceberg defended by the predators of Planned Parenthood. You know the answer: If it doesn’t help the Left criminalize conservatism, it’s not worth discussing.

From the conclusion of the grand jury report: “It is not our job to say who should be fired or demoted. We believe, however, that anyone responsible for permitting Gosnell to operate as he did should face strong disciplinary action up to and including termination. This includes not only the people who failed to do the inspecting, the prosecuting, and the protecting, but also those at the top who obviously tolerated, or even encouraged, the inaction. The Department of State literally licensed Gosnell’s criminally dangerous behavior. DOH gave its stamp of approval to his facility. These agencies do not deserve the public’s trust. The fate of Karnamaya Mongar and countless babies with severed spinal cords is proof that people at those departments were not doing their jobs. Those charged with protecting the public must do better.”
Over to you, eugenics-inspired, eco-freak Obama science czar John Holdren

***
The Philadelphia Horror: How mass murder gets a pass
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2011
Let’s give the “climate of hate” rhetoric a rest for a moment. It’s time to talk about the climate of death in which the abortion industry thrives unchecked. Dehumanizing rhetoric, rationalizing language, and a callous disregard for life have numbed America to its monstrous consequences. Consider the Philadelphia Horror.
In the City of Brotherly Love, hundreds of babies were murdered by a scissors-wielding monster over four decades. Whistle blowers informed public officials at all levels of the wanton killings of innocent life. But a parade of government health bureaucrats and advocates protecting the abortion racket looked the other way – until, that is, a Philadelphia grand jury finally exposed the infanticide factory run by abortionist Kermit B. Gosnell, M.D., and a crew of unlicensed, untrained butchers masquerading as noble providers of women’s “choice.” Prosecutors charged Gosnell and his death squad with multiple counts of murder, infanticide, conspiracy, abuse of corpse, theft, and other offenses.

The 281-page grand jury report (see full embedded document below) released Wednesday provides a bone-chilling account of how Gosnell’s “Women’s Medical Society” systematically preyed on poor, minority pregnant women and their live, viable babies. The report’s introduction lays out the criminal enterprise that claimed the lives of untold numbers of babies — and mothers:
“This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels – and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths. Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it.”

Echoing the same kind of dark euphemisms plied by Planned Parenthood propagandists who refer to unborn life as “fetal and uterine material,” Gosnell referred to his deadly trade as “ensuring fetal demise.” Reminiscent of the word wizards who refer to the skull-crushing partial-birth abortion procedure as “intact dilation and evacuation” and “intrauterine cranial decompression,” Gosnell described his destruction of babies’ spinal cords as “snipping.”
He rationalized his macabre habit of cutting off dead babies’ feet and saving them in rows and rows of specimen jars as “research.”

His guilt-ridden employees then took photos of some of the victims before dumping them in shoe-boxes, paper bags, one-gallon spring-water bottles, and glass jars.
They weren’t the only ones who adopted a see-no-evil stance:
*The Pennsylvania Department of Health knew of clinic violations dating back decades, but did nothing;
*The Pennsylvania Department of State was “repeatedly confronted with evidence about Gosnell” – including the clinic’s unclean, unsterile conditions, unlicensed workers, unsupervised sedation, underage abortion patients, and over-prescribing of pain pills with high resale value on the street – “and repeatedly chose to do nothing.”
*Philadelphia Department of Public Health officials who regularly visited Gosnell’s human waste-clogged offices did nothing;
*Nearby hospital officials who treated some of the pregnant mothers who suffered grave complications from Gosnell’s butchery did nothing; and
*The National Abortion Federation, the leading association of abortion providers that is supposed to uphold strict health and legal standards, determined that Gosnell’s chamber of horrors was “the worst abortion clinic she had ever inspected” – but did nothing.
Meanwhile, the death racketeers have launched a legislative and regulatory assault across the country on pro-life crisis pregnancy centers from New York City to Baltimore, Austin, and Seattle who offer abortion alternatives, counseling, and family services to mostly poor, vulnerable, minority women.
Already, left-wing journalists and activists have rushed to explain that these abortion atrocities ignored for four decades by abortion radicals and rationalizers are not really about abortion. A Time magazine writer argued that the Philadelphia Horror was “about poverty, not Roe V. Wade.” A University of Minnesota professor declared: “This is not about abortion.”

But the grand jury itself pointed out that loosened oversight of abortion clinics enacted under pro-choice former GOP governor Tom Ridge enabled Gosnell’s criminal enterprise – and led to the heartless execution of hundreds of babies. Mass murder got a pass in the name of expanding “access” and appeasing abortion lobbyists. As the report made clear: “With the change of administration from [pro-life Democrat] Governor Casey to Governor Ridge,” government health officials “concluded that inspections would be ‘putting a barrier up to women’ seeking abortions. Better to leave clinics to do as they pleased, even though, as Gosnell proved, that meant both women and babies would pay.”
Deadly indifference to protecting life isn’t tangential to the abortion industry’s existence – it’s at the core of it. The Philadelphia Horror is no anomaly. It’s the logical, blood-curdling consequence of an evil, eugenics-rooted enterprise wrapped in feminist clothing.

ObamaCare


 

Rasmussen: Health Care Law Now Faces Biggest Challenge, American Consumers

By Scott Rasmussen
President Obama handily defeated congressional Republicans in the political fight over his health care law. But the law will now face a much tougher opponent -- the creativity of Americans determined to gain more control over their own health care decisions. The end result will be a system much different than the president hopes for -- and his opponents fear.

To understand why, consider how the nation's 50 million 401(k) retirement accounts came into existence. It was not what Congress intended when it passed the Tax Revenue Act of 1978. Congressional summaries of the legislation listed dozens of its "major provisions" without mentioning what would become its most lasting legacy. At the time, even reducing the top tax rate from 48 percent to 46 percent was considered more important.
Two years later, though, a benefits consultant named Ted Benna discovered that section 401(k) of the law could be used in a way its authors had never intended. While Benna's clients were initially wary of the idea and fearful of government retaliation, his entrepreneurial insight eventually reshaped America's retirement landscape.
It worked because the 401(k) programs as envisioned by Benna met a real-world need that legislators could never have imagined.

It is likely that the same thing will happen to the president's health care law. As has been noted by many critics, the law has more than 2,000 pages of provisions. You can be sure that benefits consultants and entrepreneurs are scouring every page for similar tools that can be used in ways the president never intended.
Large companies will remain fearful of government retaliation but will also be looking for ways to recruit and retain the best employees. This will provide financial incentives for entrepreneurs who can figure out how the law can create better options for workers.
We know this is happening because stories have begun popping up about regulators trying to shut down such activity. For example, firms that self-insure are exempt from many provisions in the president's law. That had previously been an option only for large companies, but for a variety of reasons, smaller firms are now exploring the possibilities. Naturally, regulators want to stop this trend.

The bureaucrats will have a hard time because the public mood remains receptive to reform, particularly when it gives consumers more control. The most basic reform would give workers the chance to choose how much coverage they want. So if their employer pays for a comprehensive medical insurance plan, employees would have the right to reject some of the coverage and keep the savings. That would take the power of the purse away from insurance companies, employers and the government. Three out of four voters (76 percent) think this makes sense.
Creative entrepreneurs will find provisions in the health care law to meet this consumer demand. It is easy to envision workers being offered a choice between the comprehensive insurance mandated by the president's law and a number of less expensive options that increase their take-home pay. It's even easier to envision many workers choosing less costly insurance and more cash in their pocket.
It's too early to say specifically what these entrepreneurial options will look like, but they will succeed by offering consumers a better choice. That's something congressional Republicans never did. It's also something the president's regulators won't be able to stop.
---
To find out more about Scott Rasmussen, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2013 SCOTT RASMUSSEN
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

WWRD?


WILL REPUBLICANS EMBRACE GAY MARRIAGE?

If Republicans cave on same sex marriage, they will lose their base and the “party” will be over. Phyllis Schlafly knows this and Republicans would do well to listen to her. Drawing a line in the sand, Schlafly, a member of the 2012 Platform Committee has written a letter to RNC Chairman Reince Priebus with this warning:
“We expect all Republican officials to support the Platform. The endorsement of same-sex marriage is not acceptable…We call on the Republican National Committee to consider passing a resolution, at its next meeting, re-affirming its support of the Platform and of the Defense of Marriage Act, which was overwhelmingly passed by Congress.”

 Former First Lady Laura Bush disagrees, “When couples are committed to each other and love each other, then they ought to have the same sort of rights that everyone has.” Speaking on behalf of Respect for Marriage Coalition, in a commercial advocating gay marriage, she and Vice-President Dick Cheney along with General Colin Powell all agree.
At the same time, an impressive list of 100 Republicans signed a legal brief urging the Supreme Court to overturn California’s Proposition 8, a voter initiative limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

 But according to a recent FOX Poll, 66 % of Republican voters oppose same-sex marriage while Americans in general are evenly split. The pressure is on. The party divided.
So what’s a party out of power to do?

And who is Phyllis Schlafly that Republican celebrities should listen? A Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Washington University School of Law, one of the first female students to complete a Masters degree in Political Science at Harvard, her early interest in public policy was nuclear disarmament. But she was thrust into the public eye when radical lesbian feminists, throwing blood on the Capitol steps in Springfield, Illinois, made her mad enough to confront their demands and become a spokesman for millions of American women. The “Equal Rights Amendment” intended to strip women of all gender distinctions from marriage law to wartime combat.

Explaining that “equality” did not mean “sameness,” Phyllis rightly understood the ERA was a precursor to the current confusion on gender differences.
Because of her valiant leadership, it did NOT pass in Illinois, thus preventing it from becoming Federal Law. But the radical feminist view of the world was implemented through the classroom and the media. Protective barriers were broken and bright lines between men and women…even the good distinctions were eradicated.

Phyllis founded Eagle Forum and became a staunch and powerful arm of the Reagan Revolution. She has been a delegate to the Republican Convention every year since 1952 and a major voice on the party platform since 1980.

Exactly…some would say; A voice from the past, NOT the GOP’s future. According to FOX, 60% of voters under the age of 45 favor same sex marriage while 57% of those over 45 oppose it.
For young people especially (and I’m almost talking under age forty here) gay marriage is a fait accompli,” observed former PJ Media CEO Roger Simon.
But while Republican pragmatists hold their finger to the wind, they should hold it up in one of the bluest states in America.

In Illinois, Governor Pat Quinn, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, Attorney General Lisa Madigan and father, Speaker of the House, Michael Madigan, along with Democratic majorities in both houses in Springfield, plus Pat Brady, the Republican Party Chairman, the President of the United States and the entire body of Chicago media are all loudly, aggressively pushing gay-marriage. Gay rights advocates tried to pass legislation during the Lame Duck Session, setting wheels in motion the Friday before Christmas 2012. Family groups, in the midst of their Christmas celebrations unexpectedly fought back.

They formed what proved to be the very effective “Coalition to Protect Children and Marriage,” so that the legislature lost the support to even bring it up for a vote.

The newly elected Illinois Senate passed SB 10 handily, but in preparation for a vote in the House, traditional families descended on the Capitol, nearly 5,000 strong. Catholics, Evangelicals and Orthodox Jews rallied, and expert witnesses were brought to testify. For the first time in most of their lives, legislators heard the other side of the same-sex marriage story from a former lesbian, a professional family expert, and an impassioned black pastor. They heard what they have never heard on television or at the movies or in their public schools for the past twenty years; that same-sex marriage is harmful, especially to children. It robs them of the basic need to have a mother AND a father. Extensive studies show that children raised by same sex parents have more problems with drugs and alcohol and sexual identity.

As legislators listened, minds began to change. What was expected to be an 8-4 slam-dunk in committee became a squeak-by majority of one. The fight in Illinois is not over and if there is a vote, it will be close. But the fact that there IS a fight is the untold story.
Now GOP leader Pat Brady is under fire for his support of same-sex marriage. The catalyst for Schlafly’s letter to Reince Priebus was the Republican Party Chair’s intention to attend a Brady-sponsored luncheon in Illinois. The luncheon was abruptly canceled.
Mrs. Bush and the others should educate themselves on the real costs of homosexual marriage to society. One can only look to Massachusetts to see the devastating effects of gay marriage and the LGBT movement on public schools where children are encouraged to change genders without parental approval or knowledge, and public school girls’ bathrooms are accessible to boys who think they are girls.

If this madness is what Mrs. Bush, Colin Powell, or Dick Cheney want for their grandchildren in the misguided notion of “fairness” then so be it. But when one day, the other side of this sordid story is told, they will be glad the wisdom of Phyllis Schlafly prevailed and not their fickle, feckless leadership in dangerous times.

Source: Sandy Rios Blog

Thursday, March 7, 2013

A Pedophile Dream


 

Chicago Will Require Kindergarteners to Take Sex Ed

March 5, 2013
Chicago Schools Disciplinary Fines
In this photo taken Feb. 16, 2012, Noble Street College Prep CEO Mike Milke talks with student Gabriela Cervantes during school in Chicago. (AP Photo/M. Spencer Green)
(CNSNews.com) – A new policy that was created in part with the consultation of Planned Parenthood of Illinois will require Chicago Public School students from kindergarteners and up to receive sexual health education instruction beginning in 2015.
According to the Chicago Public Schools website, the new policy passed last week requires “minimum instructional minutes” for students, and instructional material is tailored around age-appropriateness and “medically accurate information.”
“It is important that we provide students of all ages with accurate and appropriate information so they can make healthy choices in regards to their social interactions, behaviors, and relationships,” said Chicago Public Schools CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett in a statement.
“By implementing a new sexual health education policy, we will be helping them to build a foundation of knowledge that can guide them not just in the pre-adolescent and adolescent years, but throughout their lives,” she continued.

According to the Chicago Public Schools website, the new policy was developed by the Chicago Public School Office of Student Health and Wellness (OSHW). The Chicago Public Schools website said that since June 2012, OSHW has been in consultation with various stakeholder groups for feedback and recommendations in developing the policy.
“Among the participants were Mikva Challenge, Chicago Department of Public Health, Planned Parenthood of Illinois, University of Illinois Chicago, Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health and CPS high school students,” the website said.

CPS said that the policy, which replaces the district’s 2008 Family Life and Comprehensive Sexual Health Education Policy, “will set more modern standards” for instruction for their students at all grade levels. Younger students will receive family life instruction that was also in the 2008 policy.
“For K-4 students, instruction will center on anatomy and physiology, reproduction, healthy relationships and personal safety,” the website said.
“For example, younger students in this group will focus on the family, feelings and appropriate and inappropriate touching while students in fourth grade will learn about puberty, including the physical, social and emotional changes that accompany it, and the causes and transmission of HIV infection,” it added.

“For older children in grades 5-12, instruction will include information appropriate for each grade level on human reproduction, transmission and prevention of HIV/AIDS and other sexually-transmitted infections (STIs), healthy decision-making, sexual orientation and bullying, and contraception, including abstinence,” the website read.
At least two teachers from each school will be designated as sexual health education teachers.
CPS said that the policy “conforms to the Mayor’s Healthy Chicago public health agenda” and aligns with and supports priorities in President Obama’s HIV/AIDs strategy.”

A Tragedy that Did Not Have to Be


Karnamaya Mongar died because Gosnell’s unlicensed employees excessively drugged her

Editor’s note. The jury is being selected for the trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell, charged with eight counts of murder. One of those eight counts is for the death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar. The following comes from the Grand Jury report which paved the way for Gosnell’s indictment.
Section V: The Death Of Karnamaya Mongar
Lost her life at the centre: Karnamaya Mongar (pictured with her husband) died after allegedly receiving lethal doses of sedatives and painkillers from Gosnell's untrained workers in 2009.
Lost her life at the center: Karnamaya Mongar (pictured with her husband) died after allegedly receiving lethal doses of sedatives and painkillers from Gosnell’s untrained workers in 2009.
On November 19, 2009, 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar suffered a fatal drug overdose during an abortion procedure at the Women’s Medical Society in West Philadelphia.  Along with her husband, Ash, the mother of three and grandmother of one had arrived in the United States only four months before, after spending nearly 20 years in a refugee camp in Nepal.  She and her family had been among the thousands expelled from their homeland of Bhutan following pro-democracy protests.  They came to the United States on July 19, 2009, as part of a humanitarian resettlement program.  Her husband had just found a job in a chicken factory in Virginia where they lived.  Mrs. Mongar spoke no English.

When Mrs. Monger was more then 18 weeks pregnant, she asked a family friend, Damber Ghalley, to take her to a clinic in Virginia to terminate her pregnancy.  But the Virginia clinic, and another in Washington, D.C., would not do the second-trimester procedure.  She was referred to the Women’s Medical Society because Gosnell had a reputation for performing abortions regardless of gestational age.
Mr. Ghalley drove Mrs. Mongar and her daughter to the Women’s Medical Society on November 18, 2009, and waited for them in the car.  That afternoon, Latosha Lewis conducted the clinic’s version of a “pre-examination.”  She performed an ultrasound, which showed that Mrs. Mongar was 19 weeks pregnant, and drew blood, purportedly for lab work.  No one counseled the patient, as is required by Pennsylvania’s Abortion Control Act, or recorded her weight.  (The next day it was recorded as 110 pounds.)  Gosnell did not even meet her, although he had pre-signed a form entitled “24 Hour Counseling Certificate” that falsely certified he had counseled her – a fraud that was his customary practice.

Mrs. Mongar’s initials, perhaps written by someone else, appear on a form entitled “Consent to Office Procedure Administration of Anesthesia and Rendering of Other Medical Services.”  This form purported to authorize Gosnell or “whomever he may designate as his assistant” to perform a therapeutic abortion.  Unspecified anesthesia was to be administered “by or under the direction of one of the staff members.”  The consent form and waiver were supposedly initialed by the non-English-speaking patient.  Her daughter, who also spoke almost no English, was asked to sign as a witness.
After the pre-exam signing of forms, Randy Hutchins, the part-time physician’s assistant who worked without State Board of Medicine approval, inserted laminaria to dilate Mrs. Mongar’s cervix and administered Cytotec.  Hutchins instructed Mrs. Mongar to return the next day to complete the abortion procedure.

Mrs. Mongar arrived at the clinic on November 19 around 2:30 p.m., accompanied by her daughter and her mother-in-law.  (Damber Ghalley, who drove them, again waited in the car.)  At the front desk, Tina Baldwin gave the patient her initial medication – 200 mg. pill of Cytotec (misoprostol) to soften the cervix and to cause contractions; and a 45 mg. pill of Restoril (temazapan), a drug that causes drowsiness.  Mrs. Mongar was then instructed to wait in the recovery area until the doctor arrived to perform the abortion.

Lynda Williams and Sherry West, by all accounts the least competent and most careless of Gosnell’s unlicensed and unqualified crew, were supposed to medicate and attend to Mrs. Monger in the “recovery room,” where she awaited her procedure.  Gosnell assigned Williams this duty even though Kareema Cross had warned him, at least a year earlier, that Williams did not know what she was doing and that she routinely overmedicated patients.  Randy Hutchins also spoke to Gosnell about Williams anesthetizing patients in Gosnell’s absence.  Gosnell assured him that “Williams was a trained professional and that it was not a problem.”

Mrs. Mongar’s daughter, Yashoda Gurung, clearly believed Williams was a trained medical professional – she referred to the unlicensed and unskilled worker as a “doctor” when she testified.  Mrs. Gurung told the Grand Jury, through an interpreter, that she was permitted to wait with her mother in the recovery room for several hours.  Mrs. Gurung testified that, between 3:30 and 8:00 p.m., her mother was given five or six doses of oral medicine – pills that were placed between her mother’s lip and cheek, which is consistent with how the clinic administered Cytotec orally.
Mrs. Gurung also saw her mother receive additional medication by injection through an IV line they inserted in Mrs. Mongar’s hand.  This was consistent with Gosnell’s standard practice, which was to keep the second-trimester patients asleep while the Cytotec induced cramping and labor, in the hope that the women would deliver their babies without a surgical procedure.  Also consistent with standard practice at the clinic, no equipment was available to ensure proper monitoring of Mrs. Mongar’s vital signs.

Mrs. Gurung did not know what drugs were being given throughout the afternoon and evening, but typically the doctor’s employees gave repeated injections of the concoction of sedative drugs that Gosnell referred to as a “twilight” dose.  Each of these “twilight” doses, repeated a number of times at the discretion of the unlicensed workers, consisted of 75 milligrams of Demerol (meperidine); 12.5 milligrams of promethazine (Phenergan); and 7.5 milligrams of diazepam (Valium).
Lynda Williams admitted to detectives that she had administered IV sedation to Mrs. Mongar in the recovery room when the doctor was not on site.  But she claimed that the amount she gave was significantly less than what others said was standard – Williams said she gave only 10 mg. of Demerol and 12.5 mg. of promethazine, a dosage she called a “local.”  (The chart describing the clinic’s anesthesia options, however, describes the “local” dose as 10 mg. of a different drug, nalbuphine, and 12.5 mg. of promethazine.) [See Appendix A.]

A little before 8:00 p.m., West and Williams told Mrs. Gurung that she would have to leave the recovery room.  Gosnell was not yet at the clinic, but they told her that he would be arriving at about 8:00 p.m. Mrs. Gurung tried to wake her mother before she left the recovery room, but was unsuccessful.  West and Williams told her not to rouse her mother because the medication was supposed to keep her asleep.  Mrs. Gurung was sent to another waiting room, away from her mother.  She heard nothing else about her mother’s condition until after an ambulance arrived after 11:00 p.m. to take her lifeless mother to the hospital.

Source: National Right to Life