Monday, February 6, 2012

Print All Articles

Ireland marks 20 years since X case: country still abortion-free despite abortion push

by Hilary White, Rome Correspondent Mon Feb 06 18:51 EST Comments (6)

Niamh Ui Bhriain

DUBLIN, February 6, 2012 ( – Today Irish media is full of the abortion issue as the country marks 20 years since the infamous X case – a case that some abortion advocates had hoped would be Ireland’s Roe v. Wade, but which ultimately served only to galvanize pro-life activism to successfully stop abortion’s encroachment into the pro-life country.

In the case, “X,” a 14 year-old pregnant victim of sexual abuse, was to be taken to the UK to abort her child, but was stopped by a High Court injunction obtained by the Attorney General. The injunction was overturned by the Supreme Court when the girl’s attorney claimed that the girl had threatened suicide.

The majority opinion in the case held that a woman had a right to an abortion under the constitution if there was “a real and substantial risk” to her life, and that this included a risk from a threat of suicide.

However, because the abortion law in Ireland can only be directly overturned by a referendum, since the X decision “it has been crucial to keep public opinion, not just informed, but alert to legislation that attempts to introduce abortion by the back door,” according to Niamh Ui Bhriain, head of Ireland’s Life Institute.

The X Case was intended to be Ireland’s Roe v. Wade and has “been exploited by abortion campaigners and their media allies to whip up a frenzied call for abortion-on-demand,” Ui Bhriain said.

But in Ireland, the tactic that had worked in the U.S. and elsewhere failed, and strong pro-life public opinion prevailed. Huge opposition to abortion was organized and mobilized around the X Case and foreign pressure for legalization backfired.

Since the establishment of the Republic of Ireland’s pro-life constitutional amendment in 1983, abortion lobbyists have fought through the courts both at home and at the EU to overturn, abolish or squirm around it and establish a “right” to legalized abortion throughout the country.

Pro-life leaders told that since the notorious X Case decision, it has been a constant battle to uphold the law and keep abortion out of Ireland.

Ui Bhriain said there is “a concerted campaign culminating in this use of the twentieth anniversary of the X case to try to foist abortion on Ireland.”

Recently the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in the A,B and C Case that the government has erred in failing to make it clear under what circumstances a woman has a “legal right” to abortion. Irish legal experts, however, maintain that it is the Court that erred in implying that there is such a thing as a “right to abortion” under the current law.

Nevertheless, ABC was the impetus for a review of the law by a government-appointed panel of experts, leading to renewed fears from pro-lifers of a major push to legalize abortion in Ireland.

Across the European Union, abortion activists are engaged in an ongoing campaign to establish the concept of a “right” to abortion under the European Convention on Human Rights. Ireland, being the only country in the EU whose pro-life law cannot be overturned by a simple act of parliament, is a key in the struggle to bring unrestricted abortion across the European region.

“The global abortion industry has focused huge attention on Ireland in the past few years in particular. Planned Parenthood has brought a raft of cases to the European and the EU courts. We’ve had international bodies like Human Rights Watch attack our pro-life stance and the UN was used to demand that Ireland legalises abortion,” Ui Bhriain said.

But pro-life advocates are hopeful that the country will stay true to its pro-life roots despite the increasing pressure.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

Tags: abortion, ireland

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

Miracle Joey: The boy who refused to die

by Peter Baklinski Mon Feb 06 18:29 EST Comments (63)

Miracle Joey
The Page family

OLNEY, Maryland, February 6, 2012 ( – Kristin Page woke up suddenly in the middle of a warm May night, feeling soaking wet. A few months ago, the mother of three had been afraid to take a pregnancy test when she missed her period. Kristin already felt stretched to the limit with her energetic children, aged 2 through 7, but her husband Matt had encouraged her that together they would “figure it out.”

Kristin vigorously shook Matt awake. Now 13 weeks pregnant, she had come to accept with joy the new life within her, wondering what this little bundle would bring into their blossoming family.

“My waters must have broken,” she whispered in a panic. 

On the phone, Kristin’s doctor advised her to visit the hospital first thing in the morning for an examination. He told her that such a young baby could not survive without any amniotic fluid.

An ultrasound revealed that there was no amniotic fluid, but surprisingly, the baby’s heart was still beating. The doctor told Kristin that her baby would die and instructed her to go home to rest, pray and wait for the baby to pass.

A few days later, Kristen returned for another ultrasound. To everyone’s surprise, the baby was still alive, and with a “super strong” heart beat.

A different doctor from the first told the parents exactly how dire the situation was. “No water, no lungs, no life,” she said, and encouraged Kristen and Matt to get an abortion and avoid running the increasing risk of serious infection.

A few days later, an expert in high-risk pregnancies told the parents flatly that the pregnancy would come to an end on its own. The expert counseled the parents to abort, suggesting that if waiting to miscarry seemed too unbearable for Kristen, then she could immediately opt for the dilation and curettage (D & C) procedure.

Now at 16 weeks, Kristen went to see a different specialist. Another ultrasound revealed a powerful heartbeat. The baby was thriving.

The specialist told Kristin that she was not being fair to her husband and other children if she were to leave them without a wife and mother all for the sake of a child that would not even survive more than a day. “Your only option is to terminate,” he said.

Kristen and Matt left in tears, devastated by the bleakness of their situation.

Google searches only made them more dismal. Everywhere they looked, they found that babies with no amniotic fluid had a zero percent chance of survival.

With nothing left to lose, Kristen and Matt decided to let God be in control. They told God that he could take their precious baby whenever he so wished.

“We felt that we were given no hope. Yet, against all odds, we found the strength to just say ‘so be it’ and allow what was certainly going to happen (at least in our eyes) happen,” they said.

“If He wanted him, then I would be at peace knowing it was God’s choice and not mine,” said Kristen.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

The tiniest ray of hope broke through the gathering darkness when the parents found out about Tepeyac Family Center in Fairfax, Virginia, where doctors believe in the right for all children to be born, even despite dire prenatal circumstances. It was here that Kristen and Matt found support for their decision to let God handle the pregnancy.

At 17 weeks, the bleak situation had not changed. But, defying all medical expectations, an ultrasound revealed a thriving baby who appeared to be simply content resting gently in the hollow cavity of Kristen’s womb. 

Kristen was ordered to a strict bed-rest except for weekly checkups at the family centre.

Weeks went by. At every ultrasound, Kristen expected to hear the news she dreaded the most, but the baby would not let go of its grasp on life.

“Every day brought tears to my eyes to think that I was lying there only for the baby to live a mere few hours, or couple of days at most,” said Kristen. 

At 26 weeks, Kristen was moved to Fair Oaks Hospital, an hour away from her husband and children, where she was continually monitored, administered various medicines, and hooked up to an IV machine. Her baby continued to thrive.

At 32 weeks and 3 days, the baby’s heartbeat suddenly changed. The doctors suspected that the baby was distressed, but waited a day before doing anything.

An ultrasound the next day revealed a lethargic baby with an irregular heartbeat. Kristen was immediately prepped for an emergency caesarian-section. She was scared about losing her baby.

“I knew he was safe inside me, but outside me he wouldn’t be able to breathe. I prayed for God to give us but two days with our baby so we could tell him how much we loved him.”

A completely blue boy was pulled from Kristen’s womb. He was immediately baptized by the Catholic doctor who delivered him. Kristen’s husband cut the umbilical cord. All had prepared for the worst, but not for what happened next.

“Then, we heard the screams,” said Matt - the beautiful thrilling screams of a child who is pitifully calling out for his mama.

Joseph Charles Page was born October 2, 2006, eight weeks premature.

“They let me see him and let Matt hold him for a brief minute and then whisked him away,” said Kristen. The baby had pneumothorax, a collapse of the lung, and needed to be put on oxygen. He also suffered damage to his right leg and foot, probably from resting on them exclusively during Kristen’s bed rest. 

Joey spent a total of seven weeks undergoing extensive testing in the hospital’s Neonatal Intensive Care Unit whereupon he was released with a clean bill of health.

“He is bouncing, funny, and so amazing! He brings the most joy to all of us!” said his parents. “He is so happy with us as he smiles and laughs. His brother and sisters adore him.”

Both Kristen and Matt believe that their son is “nothing short of a miracle.”

The happy parents know now with certainty that no one on earth can predict the future. “Evidence might show a nearly fatal diagnosis, but ultimately God decides. It is out of human control.”

“We look at Joseph everyday and thank God we chose to keep him! He is a blessing and a much-loved member of our family. We all know he is special.  You can still see how his face sinks in a bit from being squished and his nose is somewhat flattened.”

“But really, only we can tell.”

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

Joseph, now five, recently started pre-kindergarten where his teachers told Kristen that she needs to stop spoiling him and give him more serious consequences for his actions. Kristen says that Joey is the opposite of a “serious” child, and that he is always being “super silly.”

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

Graphic abortion ads air during Superbowl: ads blocked in Chicago

by Kathleen Gilbert Mon Feb 06 17:44 EST Comments (31)

Pro-life activist and presidential candidate Randall Terry.

February 6, 2012 ( – Ads featuring graphic abortion pictures reached thousands of Superbowl viewers on Sunday, even though the ads were blocked from the airwaves in at least one location.

Creator Randall Terry is running for president on the Democratic ticket in order to be able to air such ads. Federal regulations require television stations to air political ads from candidates unedited.  Two other pro-lifers, Angela Michael and David Lewis are also running for public office in order to run the ads.

Terry’s ads featured several images of children who had lost their lives to abortions, some of them appearing only around 7-8 weeks’ gestation. (The ads can be viewed here.)

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

The graphic ads, which also ran earlier this year in eight states to coincide with GOP campaign events, were rejected last month by NBC affiliates in Oklahoma, Missouri, Colorado, and Chicago.

After the NBC affiliates refused to air the ads, Terry appealed to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), arguing that the stations’ refusal was “a content-driven exclusion, and is therefore forbidden” under FCC rules.

However, the federal commission ruled Friday that broadcasters were exempt from the requirement to sell airtime to candidates near or during the Super Bowl, the most-watched event on television annually in the U.S.

The head of the FCC’s Media Bureau also ruled that it was reasonable for Chicago’s WMAQ to bar the ads because “Terry did not make a substantial showing that he is a legally qualified candidate entitled to reasonable access to broadcast stations in Illinois.”

Although Terry is running as a Democratic candidate for the White House, the WMAQ’s rationale relied on a statement from the head of the Democratic National Committee addressed to NBC affiliates, which claimed Terry was not a “legally qualified candidate” in some jurisdictions because he did not meet standards for the Democratic nomination in those jurisdictions.

In a statement Saturday reacting to the FCC ruling, Terry said that at least 15 stations in seven states were scheduled to run pro-life Super Bowl ads in pre-game shows, during the Super Bowl, or in News Broadcasts after the game.

Pro-life journalist Jill Stanek reports that Terry would not reveal in exactly which locations the ads were scheduled to appear for fear of further interference from the Democratic party. Attempts to reach Terry today were unsuccessful.

On Saturday Terry pointed out that the FCC’s ruling about his status as a candidate only applied to Illinois: “Because David Lewis, Angela Michael, and I are on the ballot in other states, we are de facto ‘Legally Qualified Candidates,’ which is why the stations are proceeding to run our ads.”

“We say to our political enemies, and to those who promote the murder of babies, that we will continue to run these ads across the country in primary season and in the general election where we are on the ballot. Our intention is to make child killing the number one political issue of the election this year,” he said.

David Lewis, who is running for the House of Representatives against John Boehner in Ohio, successfully aired his ad attacking Boehner and showing graphic images of abortion in Cleveland, Dayton, and Cincinnati. The ad by Angela Michael, also running for the U.S. House, reportedly aired in St. Louis, Missouri.

All three candidates have placed comment boxes on their websites to collect responses to the ads, where viewers posted very positive and very negative responses.

“I have a son that was born at 21 weeks. I treasure the one and only photo I have of him. I despise all of you pro-lifers that choose to use these photos to further push your views on everyone,” wrote one viewer.

Another wrote: “Anonymous called you disgusting and Haywood says you are sick and disgusting. The question for them is, which is the most disgusting, the showing of the picture or the actual process of tearing apart babies and throwing them in a dumpster?”

Candidate Angela Michael appeared to post in her own combox to report that a pregnant college student called her hours after the Super Bowl to say the ad had changed her mind against a scheduled abortion.

Tags: abortion, randall terry, superbowl

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

Obama: Jesus is motivation behind health care agenda

by Kathleen Gilbert Mon Feb 06 16:51 EST Comments (20)

President Obama addresses the national prayer breakfast.

WASHINGTON, February 6, 2012 ( - Even as furor in the Christian community erupted against the Obama administration’s birth control mandate last week, President Obama told a crowd at the National Prayer Breakfast that his health care agenda stemmed from his belief in Jesus Christ.

Obama touted his mantra of “shared responsibility” through raising taxes on the wealthy and regulating the insurance industry as “coincid[ing] with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.’”

“We know that part of living in a pluralistic society means that our personal religious beliefs alone can’t dictate our response to every challenge we face,” Obama told 3,000 gathered at the breakfast Thursday. “But in my moments of prayer, I’m reminded that faith and values play an enormous role in motivating us to solve some of our most urgent problem.”

In particular, he noted, “when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick .... I also do it because ... I believe in God’s command to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself.’”

(Click here to view the full transcript of Obama’s remarks.)

Obama quoted several verses of Scripture to bolster his thesis, including the Book of Proverbs and the Johannine epistles: “John tells us that, ‘If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?’”

Several commentators panned the president’s use of religious verbiage to defend his politics - something one former Congressman said “shattered” the “non-partisan and non-political” camaraderie traditional at the event.

“[Obama] has every right to advocate for his views in whatever forum he wants. But his failure to recognize that certain forums are not, have not been and should not be employed to press an overtly political agenda is truly shameful,” said former Republican Congressman Bob Barr, who noted that several of Obama’s remarks at the breakfast were “lifted virtually verbatim” from his recent State of the Union address.

A Washington Post article linked the speech’s religious tone to the recent outrage of Catholic and Christian groups for a new federal rule forcing universities and hospitals to provide even abortifacient birth control and sterilization free of copay. 

Mr. Obama, who does not attend church, has fought skepticism about his Christianity since the 2008 campaign, and has often used religious audiences as a venue for explaining how his progressive agenda meshes with his Christian faith, perhaps most famously at Notre Dame in 2009.

Tags: obama, obamacare

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

How Planned Parenthood used social media to crush Komen

by Jill Stanek Mon Feb 06 16:21 EST Comments (6)


February 6, 2012 ( - Politico’s Keach Hagey has predicted Planned Parenthood’s successful ambush of Susan G. Komen for the Cure last week will “likely to go down as a textbook case of the political power of social media.”

He’s right, and pro-lifers need to learn from it.

This article does not discuss reasons why Planned Parenthood felt it had to bring Komen down. In this article I’ll only be discussing what PP did in three short days to totally annihilate Komen.

Komen’s first mistake was underestimating the enemy. Worse than that, Komen didn’t even realize Planned Parenthood was the enemy.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

Komen started by handing Planned Parenthood its talking points (Did leadership really think marking a memo “FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY” would stop that from happening?), followed by handing PP control of the narrative by maintaining silence. From the Huffington Post, today:

As the only lobbyist on the [Komen] board, [John Rafaelli] told HuffPost, he should have anticipated the political fallout. “Honestly, I didn’t think it through well enough.”…

The charity struggled to deal with the pressure, especially in a face-off against Planned Parenthood, an organization whose fine-tuned political team has experience in these high-pitched, high-stakes debates….

[Komen CEO Nancy Brinker’s friend Ari Fleischer, former press secretary for President George W. Bush] said on Friday… ”Komen is a great group, but politically speaking, they’re no match for Planned Parenthood.”

The Komen insider agreed with Fleischer’s assessment.

“Komen’s not equipped to spend its days fighting political battles,” the source said. “…. They were just naive in the face of [the] incredibly sophisticated Planned Parenthood operation.”

Here was Planned Parenthood’s strategy.

Knowing it had all the time it needed, Planned Parenthood’s team took six weeks from the time it learned Komen was cutting it loose to put all the pieces in place before giving the Associated Press the “exclusive.”

Planned Parenthood’s online and social media team was standing by when the AP story broke. From the Washington Post:

Moments after the Associated Press reported the news… Planned Parenthood blasted news releases via e-mail and Twitter and posted the information on Planned Parenthood’s Facebook wall.

More than 2,000 supporters shared that post with their own friends on the social network. On Twitter, Planned Parenthood wrote “ALERT: Susan G. Komen caves under anti-choice pressure, ends funding for breast cancer screenings at PP health centers.” More than 500 Twitter users reposted that message.

On Facebook, Planned Parenthood has added more than 32,000 fans since Tuesday….

Planned Parenthood had a simple strategy for Facebook and Twitter. “We gave people things to do,” Sye said. The organization sent out suggestions to donate, sign an online petition, tweet about the issue and post a Planned Parenthood badge on Facebook.

“All of it,” he said, “is meant to reinforce the idea of showing public support.”

By contrast, Komen was caught off guard by the rush of developments.

More on Komen’s response, or lack thereof, from Public Relations Rogue:

When the story broke Komen leaders were slow to react, and their initial responses were brief, formal and defensive. Some PR observers suggest the battle was lost in those initial 24-hours, when Planned Parenthood mobilized its fans and led a smart, vocal PR counter-offensive.

There is a reason Planned Parenthood buys Twitter followers (42k at present) and Facebook friends (243k at present): for such a time as this. Komen has better overall numbers (39.5k on Twitter and 547.5k on Facebook) but wasn’t politically savvy enough and/or was too shell shocked to leverage them.

From Politico, the next step:

Twitter users sent more than 1.3 million Tweets referencing Planned Parenthood, the Susan G. Komen Foundation and related terms and hashtags, according to a Twitter spokeswoman. The chatter built steadily through the week, with more than 460,000 related Tweets on Thursday. Planned Parenthood helped spur the conversation by using a “promoted tweet,” Twitter’s equivalent of advertising.

“I absolutely believe that the explosion of Facebook and Twitter really drove a lot of the coverage on the mainstream media as well,” [PP CEO Cecile] Richards said.

Of course Planned Parenthood’s public relations firm(s) were ready to start pitching PP’s angle to every journalist and outlet they could. According to Matthew Balan at NewsBusters today:

Over the course of about 60 hours, ABC, CBS, and NBC emphasized the controversy with a whopping 13 morning and evening news stories. A Media Research Center study found that the soundbite count was loaded: 76% of the quotes came from supporters of Planned Parenthood (35 in total). Only 11 clips or statements came from Komen representatives or new allies.

While we would like to minimize MSM’s influence on the public, it’s really still critical. The Signal explained how, even on Twitter, the liberally dominated mainstream media helped push the pro-PP narrative:

Sorting through over 100,000 tweets that were sent in regard to Komen during the controversy, we see that they are dominated by critics of the move. Just three of the top 28 hashtags support Komen’s move (1 is ambiguous)….

The influencers in this controversy are a combination of official organization Twitter accounts, journalists, and some unaffiliated tweeters…. Pro-life groups never got much traction, with just one influencer on the list….

We can see that the pro-choice groups mobilized well, and we can see that their comments were clustered around pro-choice slogans.

MSM influencers according to The Signal included NPR Health, Huffington Post,, Daily Kos, and journalists from Slate, New York Times, Washington Post, and Reuters.

Then there were Planned Parenthood’s political supporters. Within 48 hours after the initial AP story was published, PP lobbyists had gathered the signatures of 26 U.S. senators on a letter to Komen.

To complete the blitz Planned Parenthood wrapped a fundraising campaign into the endeavor, which more than paid for the expense of the endeavor. According to Politico:

Indeed, Richards said that Planned Parenthood raised nearly $3 million in donations over the past few days….

[Rachel] Sklar [Sklar, editor-at-large for Mediaite] believes that, in the end, it was the money that talked, but social media’s power to facilitate these kinds of donations so quickly is truly unprecedented.

“It came down to an amazing mobilization of power, as evidenced through media and money,” she said.

In retrospect, Komen never stood a chance once Planned Parenthood launched its offensive. Komen did not understand Planned Parenthood’s killer nature and instincts.

Now, too late, it does.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

Reprinted with permission from

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

BREAKING: Canadian MP files historic motion to debate personhood of unborn in Parliament

by Patrick B. Craine Mon Feb 06 15:08 EST Comments (12)

Steve Woodworth addresses the over 15,000 participants at last year's March for Life.

OTTAWA, Ontario, February 6, 2012 ( – A Canadian member of Parliament has filed a historic motion in the House of Commons on Monday calling for Parliament to establish a special committee to consider when human life begins.

“Don’t accept any law that says some human beings are not human beings!” Conservative MP Steve Woodworth told a press conference at the National Press Theatre. “No Member of Parliament should remain silent in the face of any law that says some human beings are not human beings.”

The pro-life MP, who represents Kitchener Centre, has called for Parliament to re-examine section 223 of Canada’s Criminal Code, a 400-year-old provision inherited from British common law that stipulates a child only becomes a “human being” once he or she has fully proceeded from the womb.

“Section 223 is, purely and simply, a law that says some human beings are not human beings,” said Woodworth.

“Now there might be some people who can convince themselves that a child magically transforms into a human being when their little toe pops out of the birth canal,” he told reporters. “However, I’ve concluded that modern medical science will inform us that children are in reality human beings at some point before the moment of complete birth.”

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

While Woodworth has emphasized that his motion has implications beyond abortion, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson issued a statement this morning reiterating the Harper government’s position that they will not reopen the debate on abortion.

“Private members motions are considered in accordance with the rules of Parliament,” said Nicholson, who was once regarded as a strong pro-life MP. “The Prime Minister has been very clear [that] our government will not reopen this debate.”

Abortion was legalized in Canada in 1969 with the passage of Pierre Trudeau’s Omnibus crime bill, which allowed a committee of doctors to approve the deadly procedure. The Supreme Court of Canada struck down that law in 1988, calling on Parliament to enact a new one.

But numerous attempts by pro-life MPs have been rebuffed. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whose Conservative government took power in 2006 and currently holds a majority, has insisted he will “not permit anyone” to open the debate on abortion in Parliament.

In his remarks on Monday, Woodworth emphasized that his motion accords with the view of Madam Justice Bertha Wilson in the 1988 R. v. Morgentaler decision.

“The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state’s interest in its protection becomes ‘compelling’ I leave to the informed judgement of the legislature which is in a position to receive guidance on the subject from all the relevant disciplines,” Justice Wilson wrote.

Before the special committee called for by Woodworth can be established, the motion must get majority support from the House of Commons. Woodworth expects an hour of debate on the motion in March and another hour in June.

His motion proposes to give the committee ten months to prepare a final report detailing the medical evidence, whether or not it is consistent with the current Criminal Code, and possible legislative options for Parliament to affirm or amend the Code.

“History is littered with disastrous examples of laws which pretended some people were not human beings to achieve some desired result or suit someone’s philosophy,” said Woodworth.

But, he explained, “Just laws must be based on accurate evidence, not arbitrary lines unrelated to reality.  If there’s no objective criteria for who’s a human being, then personhood and the fundamental rights that go with it can be defined in any way any powerful person or group decides.  Is that the Canada you want?”

“If we care about the truth, we will courageously follow the facts wherever they lead,” he added.

The effort has been backed by numerous pro-life and faith-based groups, including Campaign Life Coalition, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, LifeCanada, and the Catholic Civil Rights League.

To send a letter of support to Stephen Woodworth:

Stephen Woodworth
Room 334, Confederation Building
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
Telephone: 613-995-8913
Fax: 613-996-7329

Other contact information:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper

All MPs

Tags: abortion, stephen woodworth

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

Planned Parenthood’s savage attack on Komen: why did they do it?

by Dr. Gerard M. Nadal Mon Feb 06 14:19 EST Comments (6)


February 6, 2012 ( - Of the many incongruities arising from last week’s savaging of the Susan G. Komen Foundation by Planned Parenthood and its minions, the greatest single seeming incongruity is the disproportionate attack on Komen in light of the paltry sum of money involved.

Planned Parenthood is a $1 billion per year organization that stood to lose $600,000 in Komen grant money. Organizations routinely loose that much money, and more, when grants are not renewed, and they are organizations for which $600,000 is the difference between life and death for the organization.

For Planned Parenthood, the loss of Komen funding represented 6/10 of 1/1000 of their budget. So what’s going on here?

It wasn’t the money at issue, it’s what Komen’s support means for the organization. Planned Parenthood makes their money performing abortions, mostly on young people. Former Planned Parenthood clinic director, Abby Johnson, tells of how the corporate model at PP was built around abortions.

The charade of concern for women’s breast health is the only socially acceptable vestige left for the organization’s bruised and tattered reputation. Planned Parenthood performed manual breast exams and referred women to mammogram centers. In some instances, it appears that they paid for the mammograms.

However, Planned Parenthood lied about performing mammograms, and Lila Rose caught them in that lie.

Subsequently, Komen decided that their money would be better spent on paying directly for mammograms, and that’s when all hell broke loose.

Planned Parenthood has an odd way of demonstrating its concern for women’s breast health. They target teenagers with low-dose birth control pills which will fail in their contraceptive effect if not taken precisely on schedule, setting up a lucrative abortion. What the oral contraceptives will not fail in doing is increasing the risk of the deadliest and most aggressive form of breast cancer, triple negative breast cancer.

How much risk?

According to Dr. Louise Brinton of the National Cancer Institute in a 2009 paper, women whose age of first use is below 18 years old have a 540% increased risk. Is that statistic in any of Planned Parenthood’s literature?

The link between oral contraceptives and breast cancer has been known for decades, yet Planned Parenthood dispenses these dangerous drugs to children with reckless abandon.

PP are the lepers of the medical community. They have been caught:

  1. Lying about performing mammograms.
  2. Repeatedly showing willingness to violate mandatory reporting laws for statutory rape.
  3. Violating informed consent by giving women medically inaccurate and fabricated information to coerce them into having an abortion.
  4. Enthusiastically accepting money earmarked for aborting Black babies.

This is an organization that makes no distinction between a ten year-old and a twenty-four year-old regarding sex. contraception, and education. In their own words from page 10 of their booklet, Stand and Deliver:

The World Health Organization defines young people as those from 10 to 24 years of age, including adolescents (10–19 years) and youth (15–24 years). IPPF uses the terms young people, youth and adolescents interchangeably to refer to people who are between 10 and 24 years.

This is an organization that tells children in their booklet, Healthy, Happy, and Hot, that disclosure of their HIV status to a sex partner is not mandatory and just another ‘choice’:

You have the right to decide if, when, and how to disclose your HIV status.

There are many reasons that people do not share their HIV status. They may not want people to know they are living with HIV because of stigma and discrimination within their community. They may worry that people will find out something else they have kept secret, like they are using injecting drugs, having sex outside of a marriage or having sex with people of the same gender. People in long-term relationships who find out they are living with HIV sometimes fear that their partner will react violently or end the relationship.

Were all of that not enough, Planned Parenthood has outdone themselves in their latest document, Exclaim!, which calls for the abolition of parental consent laws and the sexual rights of all persons under the age of 18.

This is the face of a social parasite, of the destroyer of children, of the enormous parasitic organism who preys upon our sons and daughters. All they have left is women’s breast health as the last vestige of credibility, and without Komen, they are sunk.

It wasn’t the 6/10 of 1/1000 of their annual budget that was the threat, it was the loss of the borrowed credibility from Komen that threatened them.

As symbiotic relationships go, this one between PP and Komen is a textbook definition of parasitism. Not only does Komen not need the relationship with PP, but the association is an occasion for PP to engage in a blood meal, feeding off of Komen’s enormous reserves of credibility and good will in the community.

Komen founder Nancy Brinker needs to point out the ugly reality of PP and cut the ties. It would also help if she gave the link between abortion and breast cancer, and the link between the pill and breast cancer, their proper recognition.

As the head of the world’s premier breast cancer foundation, she has an obligation to report the whole truth. If she doesn’t, she isn’t acting in women’s best interests. Unlike PP and the abortion industry, Brinker should tell women the whole truth, and then trust them to make their choices.

Choices that are fully informed.

Planned Parenthood doesn’t trust women, or children. That’s why they savaged Brinker for attempting to withdraw the protective cover of Komen’s good name.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

Pelosi: ‘I am going to stick with fellow Catholics’ in supporting Obama birth control mandate

by Christine Dhanagom Mon Feb 06 13:59 EST Comments (178)

Nancy Pelosi

February 6, 2012 ( - Even as the United States’ Catholic bishops have launched an all-out campaign against the Obama administration’s birth control mandate and urged their flocks to resistance, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has invoked the support of “fellow Catholics” to justify her position in favor of the mandate. 

Pelosi was confronted at last Wednesday’s press briefing by a reporter from, who began by pointing out that the mandate, which requires all employers to cover all sterilizations and contraception, including drugs that can cause early abortions, forces Catholic individuals and institutions to act against Church teaching.

Irritated, Pelosi, a self-professed devout Catholic, interrupted: “Is this a speech, or do we have a question in disguise as a speech?”

The reporter continued, citing a letter from the U.S. bishops, in which the bishops vowed not to comply with the law, and asked: “will you stand with your fellow Catholics in resisting this law or will you stick by the Administration?”

“First of all, I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the Administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it,” the minority leader responded.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

The comment came as at least 164 Catholic bishops across the country, representing over 90% of the country’s dioceses, have blasted the mandate, in many cases ensuring that letters were read to the faithful during Sunday Mass calling the mandate unconstitutional and unjust.

The question by the CNSnews reporter was not the first time Pelosi has been confronted about the apparent conflict between her political views and her claimed status as a “devout Catholic.”

In an interview with the Washington Post this past November, she acknowledged that many Catholics object to being forced to fund abortions, noting that “they have this conscience thing.”

The former speaker has also said she has “some areas of disagreement” with the country’s bishops, and has claimed that Catholicism does not necessarily condemn abortion.

Tags: abortion, birth control mandate, nancy pelosi

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

‘I promised God that if he would save my baby, I would leave the homosexual lifestyle’

by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman Mon Feb 06 13:03 EST Comments (21)

Lisa Miller with her daughter Isabella

February 6, 2012 ( - Lisa Miller, an ex-lesbian who made national headlines during her battle to protect her daughter from a custody transfer to her former sex partner, is now telling the story of her struggle through a book by one of her attorneys, Rina Lindevaldsen.

Only One Mommy: A Woman’s Battle for Her Life, Her Daughter, and Her Freedom” (New Revolution Publishers, 2011), gives readers new insights into Miller’s inspiring odyssey from abused and neglected child, through the horrors of sexual and chemical addictions, to redemption through faith in Jesus Christ.

Miller’s final act of bravery was her decision to enter into hiding with her child, Isabella, to escape her former lesbian partner Janet Jenkins, who was successfully seeking to transfer custody of Miller’s daughter, Isabella, to herself.  Although Miller remains in hiding, she speaks to readers through journals and letters left with her attorney, and through Lindevaldsen’s own narrative.

At the root of Miller’s nightmarish childhood were two elements: contraception and divorce. Miller’s early memories are filled with the bitter reminder that her mother, who was using birth control at the time she conceived Miller, had not wanted her.

“Whenever my mother was mad at me, she would pull out the oval peach colored pack of birth control pills that she had saved all those years to show me that only one week was missing, and that was the week she got pregnant,” Miller writes.

At age seven, Miller’s parents divorced, leaving herself and her brother alone with an increasingly mentally ill, distant, and cruel mother.  Miller’s isolation and lack of affirmation from her parents led her to seek solace in unhealthy fixations on food, diet pills, and pornography. In order to relieve herself of emotional pain, she began to cut herself, which added to the scars that her body already held from her mother’s beatings

However, Miller was also the recipient of positive influences through friendships with leaders in her church and schoolteachers, who took an interest in her and provided her with adult role models. Her religious education would come back to her in her darkest days, providing a way out of her seemingly impossible situation.

After entering a troubled marriage, and finally making a suicide attempt that left her in intensive care for days, Miller received another major blow. During her recovery in a psychiatric ward in Virginia, a counselor informed her that she was a lesbian and must seek the sexual companionship of other women.

“As part of my treatment, in order to be released, I had to meet with my immediate family, including my husband, and tell them I was a ‘lesbian.’ I complied, and not surprisingly, my marriage ended. Even though I had left behind all of my childhood addictions at that time, sadly, I entered into the addiction of homosexuality,” writes Miller.

Lisa eventually entered into a relationship and a Vermont “civil union” with a recovering alcoholic named Janet Jenkins. During that time she was artificially inseminated, resulting in the birth of her daughter. She recalls that in the misery of her sexually immoral and conflictive relationship with Jenkins, she almost lost Isabella before she was born. It was then that she made a special petition to God, promising him that “if he saved my baby, I would leave the homosexual lifestyle.”

Isabella was born healthy, and although Miller did not keep her promise immediately, she recalled it as her relationship with Jenkins continued to deteriorate. “It was then that God brought to mind the covenant that I had made with him just months earlier.  I knew enough from my religious background that one does not make covenants with God and not keep them without suffering negative consequences. When my daughter was 17 months old, I left the homosexual lifestyle and moved with my daughter back to my home state of Virginia, where she had been conceived and born.”

Judicial tyranny and the struggle to save Isabella from her lesbian “other mother”

After Lindevaldsen’s summary of Miller’s victory over homosexual vice and her other addictions, the attorney leads readers through the maze of legal arguments that have been used to justify giving parenthood rights, and ultimately guardianship, of Isabella to Jenkins.  In the process she shows that no state is truly safe from the effects of homosexualist legislation in other jurisdictions.

Although Miller was artificially inseminated while in a civil union with Jenkins, Isabella was never adopted by her, and Jenkins’ name does not appear on Isabella’s birth certificate. Moreover, Miller and Jenkins were residents of Virginia when they entered into their Vermont “civil union,” and Virginia’s constitution explicitly denies all recognition to such unions.

In sum, while Jenkins appears to lack all standing to make a claim of “parenthood,” that did not prevent judges in Vermont and Virginia from twisting the law like a pretzel to ensure that Jenkins had access to Isabella.

Miller’s legal nightmare began when a Vermont judge decided to literally create a law where one did not exist. Vermont had no law giving parenthood rights to the spouse of a woman who is artificially inseminated - the spouse had to adopt the child. But despite the fact that civil unions were to be treated like marriages under Vermont law, Vermont Judge Richard Cohen decreed from the bench that Jenkins was Isabella’s “mother.”

Noting that “the court admitted that the legislature still hadn’t answered the question of how a child born by artificial insemination by an anonymous sperm donor would gain the legal status of a child to the spouse who was not biologically related to the child,” Lindevaldsen observes: “To its credit, the court at least admitted what it was doing—creating new law in order to reach its decision.”

However, despite all of the protections inserted into the Virginia constitution against the enforcement of civil union or homosexual “marriage” legislation from other states, prosecutors managed to make use of a federal law that was designed to stop one parent from denying custody to another: the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (FKPA).

Although the law was created to prevent parents from fleeing to another jurisdiction to get a better custody settlement through another set of courts, it was used in Miller’s case to claim that Virginia could not cancel the custody order issued by the Vermont court.  Lindevaldsen argues that this is false reasoning because the federal Defense of Marriage Act protects states from the obligation of giving “full faith and credit” to homosexual unions formalized in other states, and even under the FKPA, states don’t have to enforce the decisions of other states’ courts.  Nonetheless, the Virginia courts ruled in favor of Jenkins, and agreed to apply the Vermont decision.

Lindevaldsen goes on to discuss the destructive effects of the homosexual lifestyle, and documents the damage to children and teens caused by the movement’s influence in the school system. 

The author, who is a an associate dean and professor of law at Liberty University, told LifeSiteNews that Christians need to be aware of the Obama administration’s relentless pursuit of Miller and her daughter, and the implications of their decisions at the voting booth with regard to family issues.

“I think certainly the current administration has obviously made a commitment that this is a high priority for them, that they are going to track down a biological mother and attempt to take this child away from her biological mother and I certainly think that there is some political pressure that could be taken,” Lindevaldsen said.

“I think the word needs to get out. Christians need to know that these things are happening, the idea that a woman apparently had to flee the country to protect her child, shouldn’t be happening in America, and I don’t think enough Christians know about that and don’t realize that the people they vote for in an election year, who they vote for has direct consequences on things like this.”

She added that, in addition to their involvement in the national political process, Christians can work at the state level to ensure that other children are not victimized by ant-family legislation.  Lindevaldsen says she has handled dozens of other cases that are similar to Miller’s.

“We need to pass laws at the state level making it very clear that courts do not have the discretion to do this, to declare a child to have two parents, because we need to avoid these situations happening in the future, because they are happening on a regular basis.”

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.


Tags: homosexuality, lisa miller

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

Study: In Komen vs. Planned Parenthood war, media in the bag for abortion giant

by Matthew Balan Mon Feb 06 12:29 EST Comments (3)


When the Susan G. Komen Foundation announced on February 1 that it would no longer be donating to Planned Parenthood, the Big Three networks—ABC, CBS, NBC—rushed to the defense of the left-wing organization, which is the largest abortion conglomerate in the United States. Over the course of about 60 hours, ABC, CBS, and NBC emphasized the controversy with a whopping 13 morning and evening news stories. A Media Research Center study found that the soundbite count was loaded: 76 percent of the quotes came from supporters of Planned Parenthood (35 in total). Only 11 clips or statements came from Komen representatives or new allies.

By contrast to those 13 reports on the feminist “firestorm,” when the Obama administration announced on January 20 that it was giving religious institutions one year to comply with a mandate for coverage of sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception in their health plans without a co-pay, these same networks all but ignored the face-off with angry Catholic bishops and their flocks.  It took CBS 10 days to air one news brief about the controversy on CBS This Morning on January 30. Neither ABC nor NBC have aired anything on their morning and evening newscasts over the past two weeks, and CBS hasn’t done anything since giving that one brief.

On February 3, ABC’s Claire Shipman trumpeted the negative responses to the breast cancer charity’s decision: “This morning, outrage and disappointment engulfing the Internet. ‘All lies.’ ‘You have lost my support.’ ‘Playing politics with the lives of women.’ ‘I’ll never buy pink again.’” ABC showed the strongest tilt towards Planned Parenthood, with 10 sound bites or statements in favor of the organization, versus only two supporting Komen, a five-to-one margin.

The day before, both CBS and NBC highlighted a talking point from Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards, who hyped that a “right-wing political campaign [was] bullying” the breast cancer foundation. NBC trailed not far behind ABC in terms of slant towards the abortion giant, with 15 clips in favor of the liberal darling, and four supporting Komen, a nearly four-to-one imbalance.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓

The Big Three’s on-air journalists also gave strong hints that they supported the left-leaning giant. NBC’s Brian Williams teased a segment on February 1’s Nightly News on the controversy by proclaiming how “a decision…[is] making a lot of women furious at the world’s largest breast cancer organization. Why did it cut off funds for critical breast cancer screenings?” Correspondent Lisa Myers spotlighted the “explosion of anger among your lifetime supporters” during an interview of Brinker the following evening.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

For the full Media Reality Check, click here.

Matthew Balan is a news analyst at Media Research Center. He graduated from the University of Delaware in 2003, and worked for the Heritage Foundation from 2003 until 2006, and for Human Life International in 2006. This post originally appeared on MRC’s Newsbusters blog and is reprinted with permission.


Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

Abortionist accused of sexual violations, prescribing himself Viagra, botched abortions

by John Jalsevac Mon Feb 06 11:36 EST Comments (2)

Harold Alexander

Forestville, MD, February 6, 2012 ( - A Maryland abortionist has been charged under the Maryland Medical Practice Act with a number of shocking allegations that could cost him his medical license, including “sexual boundary” violations, botched abortions, shoddy or non-existent record keeping, and the illegal prescribing of large amounts of Viagra and other drugs to himself and non-patients.

The Maryland Board of Physicians filed the case against Harold Alexander on January 20, 2012. The case is based on numerous complaints against him lodged by patients and hospital staff dating back to 2006.

According to Board documents, Alexander used the out-dated saline abortion method on “Patient A” in 2006 to abort her second-trimester pregnancy, landing her in the hospital with life-threatening complications. Alexander tried to deny that he ever treated “Patient A” and could not produce her medical records even though “Patient A” produced a $2,000 receipt for the cost of the abortion and prescriptions proving Alexander saw her as a patient.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

Other incidents show that Alexander repeatedly violated the standard of care on abortion and obstetrical patients causing major complications, infections, and hospitalization.

The MDBP also alleges that Alexander made inappropriate sexual remarks to patients and crossed sexual boundaries with staff and patients, often hugging them and kissing them on the head. He often made crude references to sex and improperly made “admiring” comments about patient’s breasts and private areas.

Alexander also improperly prescribed himself vast amounts of Viagra and other drugs. He was known to routinely hand out Viagra prescriptions to “guys I’ve known for years,” as he put it, some of which he later claimed he had no memory of ever knowing. He also improperly prescribed other drugs such as Hydrocodone (an addictive pain drug), Wafarin (an anti-clotting drug) and Concerta (a drug meant to treat attention deficit disorder), and Propecia (a drug to treat male pattern baldness) to non-patients for whom he kept no medical records.

Official documents detailing the numerous allegations against Alexander have been made available by the pro-life organization Operation Rescue at

“Allegations against Alexander paint the picture of a sex fiend hopped up on Viagra who is also a negligent abortionist with sloppy medical practices and a free attitude about handing out drugs. These traits make up a recipe for disaster for everyone around him,” said Operation Rescue’s Troy Newman. “Alexander needs to be prevented from the practice of medicine in order to protect the public.”

Alexander is the latest in a long list of abortionists who have come under Board discipline in the past several months. Those abortionists include:

- Romeo Ferrer, who surrendered his medical license under pro-life pressure after being charged by the MDBP in the 2006 botched abortion death of Denise Crowe.
- George Shepard Jr., 88, had his Maryland license revoked after it was discovered that he was aiding the notorious Steven Chase Brigham in the unlicensed practice of medicine.
- Brigham’s associate Nicola Riley, whose license was also suspended for her involvement in Brigham’s bi-state late-term abortion scheme and for lying about a felony conviction on her license application. Brigham and Riley were later criminally charged with murder for the deaths of viable babies during late-term abortions in Maryland.
- LeRoy Carhart was issued a letter of admonishment for misleading statements on his Maryland license application saying he was an emergency room physician even though he has had no hospital affiliation since 1987.

In spite of the outrageous and shocking allegations against Alexander, the MDBP has not suspended his medical license and he continues to operate without restriction.

“We have conducted our own investigations into Alexander’s abortion practices and can only say now that this is not the last we will hear of him,” said Newman. “Stay tuned.”

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

Politicians Harshly Criticize Komen’s Decision to Restrict Funding to Planned Parenthood

by Ben Johnson Mon Feb 06 07:20 EST Comments (6)


WASHINGTON, D.C., February 3, 2012, ( – In the harsh public and media backlash that greeted its decision to restrict funding to Planned Parenthood, some of the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s most strident critics have been members of Congress.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-CA, called Komen’s decision a “trumped-up excuse” for ending support for Planned Parenthood and described Komen founder and CEO Nancy Brinker’s explanation as “gobbledygook.” Invoking “the McCarthy era,” Sen. Boxer blamed the foundation’s new grant criteria on “political pressure…coming from the far right-wing that just don’t [sic.] believe” taxpayers should fund “a full range of reproductive health care.” (You can watch the video of her appearance today here.)

“This is the 21st century,” Boxer said.

Her colleague, Patty Murray of Washington, agreed that Komen had “put in place a policy that says directly that they will not provide funding for organizations like Planned Parenthood because of a partisan witch hunt in the House.”

Boxer and Murray joined 20 other U.S. Senators, all Democrats, in writing a letter to the Komen foundation stating its new policy would deprive women of “potentially life-saving screenings because of a politically motivated attack.” The letter, which was initiated by New Jersey’s Frank Lautenberg, was signed by Senators Boxer, Murray, Mikulski, Wyden, Blumenthal, Feinstein, Franken, Begich, Cantwell, Gillibrand, Menendez, Shaheen, Merkley, Tester, Akaka, Sanders, (Sherrod) Brown, Leahy, Baucus, Cardin, and Kerry.

A member of the House, California Congresswoman Jackie Speier, raised the issue of the Komen foundation’s tax-exempt charitable status in a speech on the House floor. Speier said, “I guess it means that Susan G. Komen has become a 501(c)(4), because no longer do they want to be providing [funding to] nonprofits. They want to become a political advocacy group.” She asked Americans to call Komen “and tell them that you want them to stick to what they know.”

Paul Rondeau, executive director of the American Life League, told the political attacks showed “just how dangerously powerful Planned Parenthood has become.”

“This is simply a protection racket, he said. “They do not do mammograms, or diagnostics, or treatment. They simply refer them out.”

“Compromise has allowed them to threaten to destroy another organization if they refuse to continue paying them for services they don’t even provide,” Rondeau said. “More sickening, 22 pro-abortion Democratic senators stood by their side as they did it.”

Randau said these Democratic politicians hoped to “crush Komen, who is in the business of saving lives, to protect Planned Parenthood, who is in the business of terminating the next generation.”

Prominent members of the House also voiced opposition to the private charity’s policy. Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who represents San Francisco, told reporters Thursday, “this decision on their part is to the detriment of women’s health.”

Rep. Jim Moran, D-VA, issued a statement calling the reduced funding “deeply troubling” and urged Komen not to “let politics interfere with protecting women’s health.”

Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, who replaced pro-life Rep. Bob Dornan in a hotly disputed election in 1996, told MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews Komen’s decision was “driven by politics.”

Directly addressing such criticism, Nancy Brinker said in an online video posted Thursday, “We will never bow to political pressure. We will always stand firm in our goal to end breast cancer forever.”

On Friday, Brinker posted a statement clarifying the foundation’s stance. Many interpreted it as a reversal.

“It just goes to show you when women speak out, women win.” Pelosi said on Capitol Hill Friday. “They made one decision. Now they have reversed it. We have a good outcome. ”

Pro-life organizations are waiting on further developments to see if the nuanced statement actually signals a change in policy toward funding Planned Parenthood on a mass scale or merely restates its new policy.

You can contact the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation here. However, heavy e-mail traffic has intermittently shut down its website.

Tags: abortion, barbara boxer, komen for the cure

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on

back to top