Category Archives: Pro-Life

Senate Democrats’ bill will remove all restrictions on abortion – past, present & future

This is why, instead of Democrats, I call them Demonrats.

Various states of our disUnited States of America have been making progress on protecting the lives of the unborn. But if Senate Demonrats have their way, all that progress will be obliterated by one bill.

On Tuesday, July 15, 2014, Senate Demonrats held a hearing on S. 1696, a bill that wipes out virtually every pro-life law across the country, including state laws that came into play in Pennsylvania that held late-term abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell accountable for killing babies who were born alive and killed during a gruesome late-term abortion procedure.

S. 1696 has the deceptive Orwellian title of the “Women’s Health Protection Act” even though it revokes protections for women and their unborn children. Instead, the bill would be far-reaching in how it would topple virtually every pro-life law passed in states across the country.

The bill has been heavily promoted by pro-abortion activist groups since its introduction last November, although it has been largely ignored by the mainstream news media. S. 1696 has 35 Senate cosponsors, all Demonrats, including 9 of the 10 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. The chief sponsor of the bill is Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Ct.).

Richard Blumenthal

S. 1696 is an updated and expanded version of the old “Freedom of Choice Act” that was championed by Barack Obama when he was a senator. The new bill would invalidate nearly all existing state limitations on abortion, and prohibit states from adopting new limitations in the future, including various types of laws specifically upheld as constitutionally permissible by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Among the laws that the bill would nullify are:

  • Requirements to provide women seeking abortion with specific information on their unborn child and on alternatives to abortion.
  • Laws providing reflection periods (waiting periods).
  • Laws allowing medical professionals to opt out of providing abortions.
  • Laws limiting the performance of abortions to licensed physicians.
  • Bans on elective abortion after 20 weeks.
  • Meaningful limits on abortion after viability.
  • Bans on the use of abortion as a method of sex selection.
  • Invalidate most previously-enacted federal limits on abortion, including federal conscience protection laws and most, if not all, limits on government funding of abortion.

The above laws that would be nullified by the truly diabolical S. 1696 generally have broad public support in the states in which they are enacted, including support from substantial majorities of women.

During the Senate hearing, Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee, told lawmakers that the bill is a radical departure from laws that have helped stopped late-term abortions and helped hold abortion practitioners like Gosnell accountable:

“Dr. Kermit Gosnell of Philadelphia is only the most notorious recent example of a certain type of abortion provider who flourishes under the aura of political immunity generated by pro-abortion advocacy groups in some jurisdictions. There are many others who have demonstrated repeatedly that they should not be allowed anywhere near pregnant women or their unborn children, some of whom have been operating in multiple states for many years, shielded from real accountability by the timidity of state officials who are weary of offending the abortion industry and the political activist groups that fly cover for that industry.”

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins says his group opposes the bill for similar reasons:

“Senator Blumenthal’s bill is extreme and out of touch with the views of millions of Americans on both sides of the abortion debate. It is deeply troubling that the Senate Judiciary Committee would consider a measure that puts vulnerable women in greater danger by undermining clinic health standards that are grounded in common sense. The measure even revokes laws requiring abortionists to be licensed physicians and any restrictions on late-term abortions. These laws are vital to avoid a future Kermit Gosnell house of horror. It is my hope that the Senate reject this bill and instead work to protect unborn children that can feel excruciating pain from abortion, and pass the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, S. 1670, sponsored by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).”

ACTION: Contact your senators and urge STRONG opposition to the bill.

Sources: Life News of July 14 and July 15, 2014

H/t FOTM’s Sig94

~Eowyn

Remembering that first 4th of July

Today, July 4, 2014, is the 238th anniversary of America’s Declaration of Independence.

Most of us have the day off from work, and we’ll be celebrating with a barbecue or picnic.

But the best way to celebrate the day is by remembering that first Fourth of July in 1776, when 56 men convened in a hot stuffy room in Philadelphia to deliberate on and sign the Declaration of Independence.

There are 3 parts to this post:

  1. An evocative narrative of that day in 1776
  2. The Declaration of Independence
  3. What happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration

It was a glorious morning. The sun was shining and the wind was from the southeast. Up especially early, a tall bony, redheaded young Virginian found time to buy a new thermometer, for which he paid three pounds, fifteen shillings. He also bought gloves for Martha, his wife, who was ill at home.

Thomas Jefferson arrived early at the statehouse. The temperature was 72.5 degrees and the horseflies weren’t nearly so bad at that hour. It was a lovely room, very large, with gleaming white walls. The chairs were comfortable. Facing the single door were two brass fireplaces, but they would not be used today.

The moment the door was shut, and it was always kept locked, the room became an oven. The tall windows were shut, so that loud quarreling voices could not be heard by passersby. Small openings atop the windows allowed a slight stir of air, and also a large number of horseflies. Jefferson records that “the horseflies were dexterous in finding necks, and the silk of stockings was nothing to them.” All discussing was punctuated by the slap of hands on necks.

On the wall at the back, facing the president’s desk, was a panoply — consisting of a drum, swords, and banners seized from Fort Ticonderoga the previous year. Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold had captured the place, shouting that they were taking it “in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress!”

Now Congress got to work, promptly taking up an emergency measure about which there was discussion but no dissension. “Resolved: That an application be made to the Committee of Safety of Pennsylvania for a supply of flints for the troops at New York.”

Then Congress transformed itself into a committee of the whole. The Declaration of Independence was read aloud once more, and debate resumed. Though Jefferson was the best writer of all of them, he had been somewhat verbose. Congress hacked the excess away. They did a good job, as a side-by-side comparison of the rough draft and the final text shows. They cut the phrase “by a self-assumed power.” “Climb” was replaced by “must read,” then “must” was eliminated, then the whole sentence, and soon the whole paragraph was cut. Jefferson groaned as they continued what he later called “their depredations.” “Inherent and inalienable rights” came out “certain unalienable rights,” and to this day no one knows who suggested the elegant change.

A total of 86 alterations were made. Almost 500 words were eliminated, leaving 1,337. At last, after three days of wrangling, the document was put to a vote.

Here in this hall Patrick Henry had once thundered: “I am no longer a Virginian, sir, but an American.” But today the loud, sometimes bitter argument stilled, and without fanfare the vote was taken from north to south by colonies, as was the custom. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was adopted.

[Source: "The Americans Who Risked Everything," by Rush H. Limbaugh, Jr. - father of talk radio titan Rush Limbaugh, III]

+++

The Declaration of Independence

The Want, Will and Hopes of the People

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We 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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

+++

The Fate of the Signers

Even before the list was published, the British marked down every member of Congress suspected of having put his name to treason. All of them became the objects of vicious manhunts. Some were taken. Some, like Jefferson, had narrow escapes. All who had property or families near British strongholds suffered.

Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create is still intact. [from "The Americans Who Risked Everything"]

+++

Friends, on this Independence Day, never forget the sacrifices so willingly undertaken by these 56 bravehearts. Let us take up the challenge and make sure that the dream they began 238 years ago be never extinguished. 

God Bless America!

~Eowyn

Minnesota Chamber of Commerce welcomes baby killer

The Chamber of Commerce of Richfield, MN, will be throwing a grand ribbon-cutting ceremony on June 30, 2014, to welcome a new business to the city of 35,228!

This is what the new business will do in Richfield, an inner-ring suburb of Minneapolis-Saint Paul.

8-week-aborted-fetus

The business is the Orwellian-named baby-killing Planned Parenthood.

Here’s the breathless from barely-contained excitement announcement on the website of the Chamber of Commerce of Richfield, MN:

Name: Ribbon Cutting – Planned Parenthood MN, ND, SD

Date: June 30, 2014
Time: 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM
Location: Planned Parenthood MN, ND, SD
                    6527 Lyndale Avenue South - Richfield

Event Description:

Join us as we welcome Planned Parenthood to Richfield! The new clinic will ​replace the Centro de Salud clinic in midtown Minneapolis which has been a hub for Spanish-speaking patients since 2000, serving more than 2,500 patients each year with expert care in a compassionate, nonjudgmental environment.

This exciting development will increase access to much-needed health care and education services in South Minneapolis and enable Planned Parenthood to serve their Spanish-speaking patients even better than before.

A Ribbon Cutting Ceremony is an important part of a business’ overall marketing and advertising plan and is a great way to kick-off a grand opening of a business. It offers an opportunity to meet key leaders in the community and get acquainted with neighbors and Chamber members.

Hitler would be so proud.

APersonsAPerson

~Eowyn

I Love People, I Despise People

Bogart

I Love People, I Despise People

I love all of my brothers and sisters. But I also despise them.

I love their kindness and the smiles on their faces. I despise their lack of intelligence and their refusal to face reality.

I love their children and their belief in goodness. I despise how easily manipulated they are by the masters of media.

I used to love to entertain them and hear their praise. I despise how they allow themselves to be duped by the artificial emotions of Hollywood and Madison Avenue, and led like puppets to their own destruction.

I love how my brothers and sisters embrace God and religion. I despise how they abandon their principles to justify their desire for abortion and sin. (How can anyone who believes in God and Heaven vote for a candidate who isn’t pro-life? Don’t they know that abortion is a one-way ticket to hell?)

I love humanity. I despise humanity.

The best pro-life movie of the year? A “comedy” about abortion

Washington Post: From the first words out of her filthy, brazenly irreverent mouth, the stand-up comedian Donna Stern goes there. Working a room of Brooklyn hipsters in a cramped club on open-mike night, she doesn’t just work blue: She works teal, azure and shades of aquamarine that haven’t even been discovered on the light spectrum yet.

Comedy...

Comedy…

Obvious Child,” a provocative romantic comedy from new writer-director Gillian Robespierre, opens with Stern doing one of her bits, giddily sharing the most intimate secrets of her day-old lingerie like a cross between sweet-faced, foul-mouthed Amy Schumer and Jerry Seinfeld. Donna is played by “Saturday Night Live” alum Jenny Slate, who possesses the same good-girl cuteness of Schumer and Sarah Silverman, and the same shocking subversive streak. As her business-school-professor mother complains at one point, she’s such a smart, nice Jewish girl who passed her SAT with flying colors. “And now you waste that 720 verbal telling jokes about having diarrhea in your pants.”

That’s one of the few lines in “Obvious Child” that can be repeated in a family newspaper. The queasy, prudish and easily offended should be forewarned that Robes­pierre, like so many of her contemporaries, clearly sees profanity as a legitimate arrow in the quiver of liberation, a mode of bracing, confrontational candor that instantly disarms fusty structures of sexism and other depredations. When Donna’s best friend, Nellie (Gaby Hoffmann), uses a common epithet for the female anatomy to fulminate against the Supreme Court, she’s appropriating the rhetoric of oppression and using it, jiujitsu-like, to strike back.

That’s one reading. Seen through another lens, Donna and her friends’ constant — and often unfunny — swearing and nattering on about sex and other bodily functions resembles a group of little kids seeing just how much they can get away with before being sent to permanent timeout. That immaturity is at the core of “Obvious Child,” in which Donna gets dumped, loses her job and faces an unplanned pregnancy after a drunken one-night stand. The whole point of the film is that she’s unformed, using her 20s to experiment and make mistakes and, in the case of deciding whether to terminate her pregnancy, make the decisions that will ultimately create a more experienced — maybe even wiser and more compassionate — adult human being.

That balance — between annoying, cavalier self-involvement and genuine vulnerability and growth — is what keeps “Obvious Child” interesting, making it one of the most startlingly honest romantic comedies to appear onscreen in years. Donna and her friends aren’t always likable: They’re spiky, sharp-elbowed and unremittingly coarse, making viewers of a certain age long for just a little more softness between them. As with “Girls,” the HBO show that most clearly shares “Obvious Child’s” young-feminist DNA, the most nuanced and sympathetic character isn’t Donna or her female friend, but a guy — in this case, sweet-natured Max (Jake Lacy), the wholesome, unsuspecting straight arrow who may or may not be a father by the time Donna has made her own choice.

That choice, and how it’s depicted, vaults “Obvious Child” beyond just another savvy New York indie and into cultural watershed territory: After years of movies that depict abortion as a non-option (the worst offender being “Juno,” which had to set up the straw man of a dingy, disgusting clinic for the teenage heroine to continue her pregnancy), “Obvious Child” dares to portray Donna’s decision in a way that’s serious and emotionally consequential but not fraught with crippling anxiety, shame or regret.

Because Donna processes everything through her comedy, “Obvious Child” occasionally tiptoes and then stomps right over the line of good taste. There are one-liners that seem designed to validate every negative stereotype of callous urban liberals ever concocted by the far right. But Robespierre has the courage to take those interpretive lumps, in service to a larger point: that we’ve reached a moment in our social, political and cultural life when the non-punitive portrayal of a woman exercising her right to a safe and legal abortion is considered more taboo than the numbing succession of murders, maimings, disfigurements and assaults we consume on a weekly basis in movie theaters and on TV.

Through it all, even despite her crankiest, most selfish and adolescent moments, Donna earns the audience’s support, thanks largely to the inherent sweetness Slate brings to her screwed-up but lovable character. There are as many awkward, discomfiting sequences in “Obvious Child” as there are interludes of genuine fun and romance. The result is a movie that feels risky and forgiving and, despite its traditional rom-com contours, refreshingly new. If we can stipulate that existence is an inherently messy affair, ungainly and contradictory and confoundingly unresolved, then “Obvious Child” may be the most pro-life movie of the year.

"Compassion"

“Compassion”

Only in a twisted mind is a “comedy” about abortion a pro-life movie.

See also:

h/t Newsbusters

DCG

Chinese victim of one-child policy shares her tale of redemption after three coerced abortions

unborn baby

LifeSiteNews: A woman who endured three coerced abortions at the hands of “family planning” officials in China has opened up about her guilt and sorrow following the deaths of her three unborn children, and the suffering all Chinese women face as a result of the communist government’s draconian one child policy.

In an article for the China Aid website, Jinghong Cai, now a Ph.D. student in the United States, shared her personal story of grief and redemption, and shed light on the governmental and cultural pressure women undergo when it comes to pregnancy in the communist nation.

“The first time I was forced to have an abortion because I did not apply for the government’s permit to get pregnant,” Jinghong wrote. “My department secretary in charge of family planning told me that it was better for me to have a secret abortion than being reported and then punished.”

“Of course, she was not being kind to me or anything,” wrote Jinghong. “The reason she asked me to have a secret abortion was that if I was punished for breaking the family planning law, the university would receive a stern warning, even a hefty fine, and the university leaders would have to submit a letter of ‘remorse’ for negligence and dereliction of duty!”

Jinghong later went through official channels and received permission to become pregnant.  She gave birth to a baby boy.  But soon, she found herself again at the mercy of the family planning police.

“After my son was born, I got pregnant again, and for the same reason I had a second abortion,” recounted Jinghong. “After that, the doctor recommended that I use a Copper-T IUD, a type of long-acting, reversible contraception. Unfortunately, this device, considered one of the most effective forms of birth control, was disposed of by my body unbeknownst to me. I got pregnant again. For the same reason, I had another abortion.”

“As a Christian, I know that God has forgiven me, but for years, I carried with me the pain, shame and guilt of having snuffed out three precious lives,” Jinghong wrote.  Soon after her baptism in 2012, “I confessed my sin of abortion to God [and] had a blissful dream—three young children giggling joyfully, playing hide and seek, running around a smiling man in a long, white robe. I knew I was forgiven.”

Jinghong says that aside from her conversion to Christianity, her story is far from unusual in China.

“My story is not unique; it is the story of millions of Chinese women,” wrote Jinghong.  She recounted the story of her aunt, who gave birth to three girls in violation of the one child policy before finally having a son, risking “harsh and extreme” punishment by the authorities.

“One morning in June [of 1985],” recalled Jinghong, “the police drove a big truck into my aunt’s village and forced all married women to jump on the truck. Many of them were middle-aged, had already had children, and were not even pregnant. The police told them that they would undergo a medical checkup at the hospital, but once there, they all were forcedly sterilized.

Jinghong’s aunt was one of those who underwent the mandatory procedure.  Complications from the surgery almost caused her to bleed to death.

“The Western, liberal ideologists may question why they wanted to have a son so badly that they broke the government’s law time and again,” Jinghong wrote. “According to Chinese tradition, it is almost a religious belief that a son is the best heritage of a family, and the male heir is like the family’s flame of the incense, passing on his ancestor’s spirit from generation to generation. Wives often feel ashamed and guilty if they cannot give birth to a son.”

Indeed, the one child policy has led to what some human rights activists have called a “gendercide” against females in China.  Chinese girls are frequently aborted, killed at birth, or abandoned by their families, who think that if they are only permitted to raise one child, it should be a son.

Based on statistics from a 2009 study in the British Medical Journal, it has been estimated that there are only five girls born in China for every six boys as a result of sex-selective abortion, infanticide, or exposure. Approximately 1.1 million fewer girls are born every year. As a result, there are currently 37 million more males than females living in China, and the gender imbalance continues to grow.

According to Jinghong, it will take much more than a policy change to roll back the widespread practice of abortion in China.  She says that decades of systematic coercion and propaganda campaigns have left their indelible mark on the psyche of an entire nation.

“Forced abortion means it is never a ‘choice’ for women in China,” Jinghong wrote.  “However, people in China are so blind about this fact that they accept forced abortion as a natural and normal act, and even automatically engage in helping the government with its propaganda.”

“A middle-aged woman, a Communist Party member from the university where I used to teach, often told foreign tourists that the whole world should thank China for the forced abortion policy, ‘for we contribute to the world by sacrificing ourselves.’”

In China, abortion is as common as children having their tonsils taken out,” wrote Jinghong. “Nobody connects abortion with murder. The government’s policies have created a culture of disrespect for life and dignity, with millions of babies (some up to 9 months gestation) forcedly aborted.

Jinghong credits her faith with allowing her to accept the truth about abortion, as well as forgive herself.

“Many in communist China and across the world reject the notion of abortion as murder; I had three forced abortions—I found God; I know better.

DCG

Let’s Make Abortion Fun & Trendy!

abortion-is-murder

The following article is by Louise Mellon on the ACLU. My comments are in parenthesis.

The new romantic comedy “Obvious Child” has managed to do something pretty extraordinary — it’s made abortion sympathetic, and funny. (Oh, really?)

In it, main character Donna has an abortion after a drunken one-night stand. But unlike most other characters who grapple with this question, Donna doesn’t torture herself. She makes the decision without angst, guilt, or extenuating circumstances. And like millions of American women, Donna follows through, then moves on with her life. (How quaint)

A movie about an experience this common – nearly one in three American women will have an abortion in their lifetime — shouldn’t feel so revolutionary. But it does. (One in three? Really???)

Our culture still stigmatizes abortions and the women who have them. When President Obama issued a statement of support on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, he didn’t use the word abortion once. Think about that — in a statement supporting the decision that recognizes the constitutional protection to abortion, abortion wasn’t mentioned. (This is a rare example of the left admitting what deceitful liars they are.)

Even within the reproductive rights movement, we have a million ways to signal abortion without saying it. We talk about “personal, private decision making,” “women’s health” or “reproductive health care.” (More admitted lies.)

Even I, who have devoted my life to defending reproductive rights, have friends who want an abortion but won’t admit it to me. Instead they’ll call and tell me their “friend” needs help. That speaks to a frightening level of shame. (Gee, I wonder why? Could it be because murder is a shameful act?)

Here’s the truth: We all know – and probably love – a woman who’s had an abortion. Indeed, we likely know several women, and love them. We just don’t know it.

Here’s another truth: Even if we don’t agree about abortion, we can agree that we shouldn’t judge a woman unless we’ve walked in her shoes. Life, after all, is messy. And decisions aren’t always black and white. (Sure, they are. That’s what the Ten Commandments are all about. Thou shall not commit murder.)

Abortion stigma causes real harm. Even the simple silence around abortion hurts women. It makes women afraid to talk about their experiences, even with trusted friends and loved ones. It encourages politicians to chip away at women’s ability to make this decision for themselves – and then say they’re doing it for our own good. Stigma, and the silence it nurtures, enables a culture that tells doctors and nurses they can refuse to treat a woman who seeks an abortion because she is untouchable — declining even to take her blood pressure or provide her with pain medication, lest they be tainted by association. (So abortion stigma causes harm, but the physical murder of babies doesn’t? Someone get this woman to a shrink. Now!)

That’s why the “Obvious Child” is so welcome. It deftly reflects the experience of millions of women across the country – that we sometimes get pregnant when we didn’t want to and decide to have an abortion because it’s the right decision for our lives. (Risking eternal damnation a right decision? Hmmn… I don’t think so.)

Midwives carry out abortions in shake-up which prompts fury from pro-life groups

unborn baby

DailyMail: Midwives have been given the green light to take the main role in performing abortions.

New Department of Health rules say for the first time that midwives and nurses may “participate in the termination”. The controversial guidelines were last night condemned by MPs and anti-abortion campaigners.

Crossbench peer Lord Alton said: “It is particularly perverse that midwives, who do the beautiful work of helping babies into the world will now be called upon to end the lives of children they might otherwise work to save.”

Tory MP Fiona Bruce said the new rules would ‘allow abortions to be administered by nurses or midwives instead of doctors’. She added: ‘This is a clear liberalisation of abortion law which people do not want. Moreover, I do not believe that it is what Parliament intended.’

Under previous guidelines, midwives and nurses could undertake “certain actions” in help to terminate unwanted pregnancies. But the new rules go much further and state clearly that a “nurse or midwife may administer the drugs used for medical abortions”.

The new guidance, which also rules out abortions carried out on the grounds of sex alone, comes at a time of controversy over abortion law, which allows nearly 200,000 terminations to be performed in England and Wales each year. About a fifth of pregnancies end in abortion.

The 1967 law which governs abortion says that two doctors must approve the termination and the procedure must be conducted by a doctor.

In 1981, the courts gave approval for nurses to be involved, and Whitehall guidance restated the principle in 1999.

But the new rules for the first time say that a doctor needs only to approve and begin a termination. The bulk of the procedure can be carried out by nurses.

The move follows pressure from the Royal College of Nursing and abortion providers, who believe the law should be changed to allow nurses full control of abortion induced by drugs or some other techniques.

Labour MP Jim Dobbin, the co-chairman of the all-party Parliamentary Pro-life Group, said: “We simply cannot trust the Department of Health on abortion.

They take every opportunity to make life easier for the abortion industry, even on legally contentious grounds. The Abortion Act is crystal clear that a qualified doctor is the only person able to perform an abortion.”

“Not satisfied with this, the department is now making nurses and midwives accomplices to the tragic taking of innocent human life. We are looking at a judicial review to challenge the legality of this appalling decision.”

Pro-choice organisations say that over the past 20 years nurses have taken over many of the clinical functions once reserved for doctors and so the law should be liberalized to allow them to take over the lead role in abortion.

Ann Furedi, chief executive of the biggest abortion provider, BPAS, said: “We think nurses are the best people to deliver early abortions. Abortions should be carried out by people who are clinically qualified to do it, including nurses.”

The Department of Health said the new guidelines made no difference to the law and merely clarified the existing rules.

Dr. Michael Scott, a consultant psychologist and critic of abortion law, believes the new guidance is designed to free up funds in the NHS. “Nurses would be cheaper than doctors,” he said. “One can see that from a purely economic point of view, the government is moving in that direction.”

Dr. Tony Cole, chairman of the Medical Ethics Alliance, added: “Midwifery is one of the most life-enhancing fields in the whole of medicine and to ask midwives to carry out these death sentences is obscene. It is a betrayal of what midwives are for.”

DCG

Planned Parenthood says God doesn’t think abortion is wrong

No. 6 in the Ten Commandments is “Thou Shalt Not Kill.”

The 6th Commandment can be found in Exodus 20:13 of the Old Testament, i.e., the Bible.

But the taxpayer-supporter abortion-mill Planned Parenthood says nothing in the Bible says abortion is wrong, and that God actually thinks the killing of little innocent human beings is just okay.

APersonsAPersonCarole Novielli reports for LifeNews, May 23, 2014, that in a “Pastoral Letter to Patients,” Planned Parenthood tells women and girls in a crisis pregnancy that there is nothing in the scriptures that says abortion is wrong and that many clergy think abortion is okay:

“The decision to have an abortion is personal. Though your reasons may be complicated and private, you’re not alone. As religious leaders from a number of religious traditions, we’re here to support you in your decision.

Many people wrongly assume that all religious leaders disapprove of abortion. The truth is that abortion is not even mentioned in the Scriptures—Jewish or Christian—and there are clergy and people of faith from all denominations who support women making this complex decision.

The beliefs of each person are deserving of respect, and each person deserves care and compassion, No one should be allowed to force their faith teachings on anyone else. [...]

God loves you and is with you no matter what you decide. You can find strength, understanding, and comfort in that love.”

Planned Parenthood lettereach person deserves care and compassion

Obviously, by “each person” Planned ParentAbortionhood doesn’t include the tiny human person inside the womb about to be murdered.

“Godis with you no matter what you decide”

In other words, Planned ParentAbortionhood’s “God” is a “Do As Thou Will” deity, which is actually Satan and the motto of the Church of Satan.

H/t California Catholic Daily

~Eowyn

Five people killed EVERY DAY by assisted suicide in Belgium as euthanasia cases soar by 25 per cent in last year alone

angel

Daily Mail: Doctors in Belgium are killing an average of five people every day by euthanasia, new figures have revealed. The statistics also show a huge 27 percent surge in the number of euthanasia cases in the last year alone.

The soaring number of deaths will inevitably fuel fears that euthanasia is out of control in Belgium, a country which only months ago became the first in world to allow doctors to kill terminally ill children.

The figures, published in Sudpresse, Belgium’s leading French-speaking newspaper, showed that 1,816 cases of euthanasia were reported in 2013 compared to 1,432 in 2012, an overall increase of 26.8 percent.

“You could say that currently there are 150 cases of euthanasia per month in Belgium or, even more telling, five people euthanized in a day,” the newspaper said.

Of the total number of cases in 2013, 51.7 percent were male patients and 48.3 percent were female.

Elderly people aged between 70 and 90 years made up just over half (53.5 percent) of the total. Those aged between 60 and 70 years represented 21 percent and those aged over 90 years seven percent. The under-60s accounted for just 15 percent of the total of number of cases.

In 2003 Belgium was the second country in the world to legalize euthanasia after Holland liberalized the law a year earlier, becoming the first country since Nazi Germany to permit the practice.

Over the past decade the numbers of Belgians dying by euthanasia has crept up incrementally.

There was a 25 percent increase in the number of euthanasia deaths from 2011 to 2012, soaring from 1,133 to 1,432, a figure representing about two percent of all deaths in the country.

In February Belgium extended euthanasia to children who are terminally-ill and in a state of unrelieved suffering. They must also be judged to have “capacity of discernment”, affirmed by a psychologist, and the consent of their parents before then can die by injection.

Anti-euthanasia campaigners have argued that such safeguards have consistently proved by be meaningless. They say that besides patients who are gravely ill, euthanasia is used increasingly on people with depression or non-terminal conditions.

Those killed include deaf twins Marc and Eddy Verbessem, 45, who were granted their with to die in December 2012 after they learned they would likely to become blind.

Last year, Nancy Verhelst, 44, a transsexual, was also killed by euthanasia after doctors botched her sex change operation, leaving her with physical deformities she felt made her look like a “monster”.

Disability rights campaigner Nikki Kenward of the UK-based Distant Voices pressure group said the figures demonstrated the difficulties in regulating euthanasia. She said that once a country legalized assisted suicide or euthanasia people were inevitably killed in greater numbers than ever envisioned.

The figures should serve as a warning to the Parliament not to change the law on homicide to allow even assisted suicide, she said. “As the numbers of people dying from euthanasia in Belgium grow, that slippery slope comes into vision,” said Mrs. Kenward.

“I am vulnerable,” said Mrs. Kenward, who has been in a wheelchair since the 1990s when she developed Guillain Barre syndrome. “I’m afraid of becoming another statistic, another faceless victim,” she said, adding: “We are told that safeguards will protest us from abuses. They certainly do not protect the elderly in Belgium.

DCG