Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Print All Articles

‘Professionally incompetent’: Abortionist stripped of license over late-term abortion referrals

by Operation Rescue staff Tue Feb 21 18:24 EST Comments (11)

 
Abortionist Ann Kristin Neuhaus

TOPEKA, Kan., Feb. 21, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (KSBHA) has ordered the revocation of the medical license of abortionist Ann Kristin Neuhaus, stating that Neuhaus’ practice of essentially rubber-stamping late-term abortion referrals to George Tiller was “professionally incompetent” and constituted “unprofessional conduct.”

The eleven counts against Neuhaus were based on eleven patient records involving girls between the ages of 10-18 who received post-viability abortions in 2003 at Tiller’s now closed abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas.

At that time, before post-viability abortions could be done, Kansas law required a second consenting opinion that the continuation of a pregnancy would cause “substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” of the woman. Neuhaus provided all of Tiller’s late-term abortion referrals at that time and referred each of the eleven patients for abortions on mental health grounds.

However, according to Administrative Judge Edward J. Gaschler, who wrote the Board’s initial order that was released to Operation Rescue today, there was no evidence that Neuhaus ever saw many of the patients she referred for post-viability abortions.

(Click “like” if you want to end abortion! )

In addition, there was no evidence that she conducted proper mental health evaluations. Neuhaus reportedly used a computer program called Psychmanager Lite to input answers to “yes or no” questions to generate diagnoses in spite of warnings from the program manufacturer not to rely on the program without conducting evaluations that Neuhaus failed to perform.

Dates on the computer printouts indicate that the dubious diagnoses were made days or weeks after the abortions were begun.

Neuhaus’s initial order will be taken up by the full Board at their April meeting where it is expected to be finalized.

The case was the result of a 2006 complaint filed by Operation Rescue staffer Cheryl Sullenger. KSBHA prosecutor Reese Hayes formally notified Sullenger of the revocation order this morning.

“Based on the Board’s initial order, we have no doubt that George Tiller conducted illegal abortions, knowing fully that Neuhaus issued mental health diagnoses to support late-term abortions without having seen the patient or after an inadequate consultation with the patient that did not include a proper mental health evaluation,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Nation.

“Had Tiller lived, it is certain that his medical license would also have been revoked since he faced a similar complaint petition based on the same eleven patient files,” said Newman. “The decision to revoke Neuhaus’ license vindicates ten years of our work in Kansas and proves that we were correct in our allegations that Tiller was doing illegal abortions.”

This is not Neuhaus’ first encounter with the KSBHA. Neuhaus came under Board discipline in 1999 and again in 2001 for medical abuses, which included an alleged forced abortion on a woman who had withdrawn her consent, shoddy record keeping, and lack of proper patient care. The KSBHA declared at that time that Neuhaus was a “danger to the public” and limited her ability to practice medicine.

Tags: abortion, ann kristin neuhaus, george tiller, operation rescue

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

Largest ever 40 Days for Life campaign kicks off Ash Wednesday

by John Jalsevac Tue Feb 21 18:04 EST Comments (5)

 
Campaign Director Shawn Carney with former Planned Parenthood Director Abby Johnson

February 21, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – This year Ash Wednesday isn’t just the first day of the Christian penitential season of Lent, it is also the beginning of the largest ever 40 Days for Life campaign.

The massively successful international pro-life effort is set to launch in a record-breaking 258 locations in the United States, Canada, England, Australia and Spain.

The peaceful campaign unites pro-life advocates around the globe in 40 days of prayer and fasting, constant vigil in front of hundreds of abortion clinics, and community outreach.

Campaign Director Shawn Carney said Tuesday he is stunned by the advances that the 40 Days for Life campaign has made in the past seven year.

“When we conducted the first 40 Days for Life campaign in College Station, Texas, back in 2004, if you had told me that 40 Days for Life would spread around the globe … I wouldn’t have believed it,” wrote Carney on the 40 Days for Life blog.

“We thought there would be ONE — and only one — 40 Days for Life campaign. EVER.”

“Thankfully, God’s plans were bigger than ours.”

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

In the past seven years hundreds of thousands of pro-life advocates have joined the campaign, thousands of babies have been saved from abortion, and numerous abortion facilities have been shut down.

Carney said that participating in the campaign “will require sacrifice,” but added, “it will be worth it.”

“40 Days for Life is God’s work — but in order to make this happen, He needs YOU!” he said. “We start tomorrow. Will you be there?”

To find the 40 Days location nearest you, click here.

Tags: 40 days for life, abortion

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

Farewell, Frappuccinos

by Rob Schwarzwalder Tue Feb 21 17:27 EST Comments (34)

 

February 21, 2012 (FRCblog.com) - My home state of Washington has produced some of America’s leading corporations and entrepreneurs: Microsoft and Bill Gates; the Nordstrom, Boeing and Weyerhaeuser families and their eponymously named companies; the Eddie Bauer sporting goods empire; and the nearly omnipresent Starbucks (almost 11,000 stores worldwide).

Starbucks emerged in the 1970s at Seattle’s Pike Place Market.  One of my sisters bought me a bag of cocoa powder from this location more than three decades ago; if I still had it, it likely would fetch a nice collector’s price.

For many years, I’ve enjoyed going to Starbucks, becoming acquainted with any number of “baristas” and drinking enough of its variously flavored beverages that “grande” characterizes my waistline as much as the size of a given drink.  Even when traveling in the Middle East, the taste of a frappuccino has been a welcome reminder that one can go home again.  And I’ve always been glad to go into a place that, in some ways, still reminds me of home (there’s a reason Starbucks’ interiors usually are muted; it’s a Pacific Northwest thing).

With Microsoft and several other major firms, Starbucks last month endorsed the effort of some of the Evergreen State’s leading politicians to enact homosexual “marriage.”  Although this initiative passed in the state legislature and was signed into law by departing Gov. Christine Gregoire, it likely will be on the state ballot in November.

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

What is a bit maddening, given Starbucks’ strident advocacy for the redefinition of marriage, is CEO Howard Schultz’s claim that he is non-political.  As he said just a few days ago, ”I have no interest in public office … I have only one interest, and that is I want the country to be on the right track.”

Schultz continued, “I just feel that for some reason, over the last few years, there’s been a fracturing of understanding and sensibility about the responsibility that the leadership in Washington must have to the people who are being left behind … And I’m significantly disappointed about the ideology, the partisanshipness, and, obviously, the way in which everyone in Washington is focused on one thing right now, which is reelection.”

To Schultz’s credit, he authored a pledge, now signed by a fairly large group of CEOs, in which they promise, “I join my fellow concerned Americans in pledging to withhold any further campaign contributions to elected members of Congress and the President until a fair, bipartisan deal is reached that sets our nation on stronger long-term fiscal footing.”

This is admirable, and no doubt motivated by a patriotic desire to see the U.S. once again become the engine of economic growth that, for so many decades, it has been.  Yet the key to a strong economy is a strong family – a family composed of a father, a mother, and children.  The hard data prove it.  By supporting a movement that would further vitiate the already weakened family unit, Schultz is tacitly but actively advocating the continued erosion of the institution – the two-parent, heterosexual, traditional and complementary family unit – without which no economy or society generally can thrive.

Additionally, Schultz’s decrying of divisiveness rings a bit hollow when he plunges his company feet-first into the culture wars.  The effort to redefine marriage to include same-sex partners is a radical social innovation, one fraught with dangerous implications for individuals, families, and culture.  Claiming to be post-political and then allowing one’s chief corporate spokesperson to say that same-sex “marriage” is “is core to who we are and what we value as a company” are assertions that don’t quite add up.

So, for now, at least, I will buy my overpriced flavored coffees elsewhere.  I dislike boycotts for a number of reasons, but am undertaking a personal one at present.  Being for marriage, as understood in the Judeo-Christian context and Western tradition, is much more to “the core of who I am” than a Starbucks iced mocha ever will be.

Rob Schwarzwalder serves as Senior Vice President for the Family Research Council.  He oversees the Communications and Media Relations, Policy and Church Ministries teams. Reprinted with permission from the Family Research Council blog.

Tags: gay marriage, starbucks, washington

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

I am angry. Very angry.

by Rev. John A. Leies, S.M. Tue Feb 21 17:13 EST Comments (167)

 
Rev. John Leies

February 21, 2012 (HLIAmerica.org) - I am angry. Very angry. My government has demanded (not “requested”) that I violate my conscience. On Jan. 20, Kathleen Sebelius, head of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), announced that all institutions — schools, hospitals, clinics, etc., (even those conducted by religious groups opposed to the measures) — must cover in their insurance plans contraceptives, sterilizations and abortifacients. This policy was endorsed and approved by the president.

The policy allows a “religious exemption,” but one which is so narrow that it would cover very few people — only those whose administrators and beneficiaries were all of the same religion. The exemption would cover convents and monasteries, but not Catholic grade schools, high schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, clinics, orphanages, food kitchens or even businesses run by faithful Catholics. These institutions hire people of other faiths to help them in their mission and they serve people of other faiths as well as Catholics. So the institution must offer insurance plans that provide medical procedures that are immoral. The Catholic Church teaches that abortions and the use of artificial means to avoid conception are always wrong. I, as a Catholic, may not engage in wrong actions — nor cooperate in encouraging others to do so. “Forcing persons to cooperate in actions they judge to be evil is evil.” (E. Christian Brugger)

Following a great uproar that included even liberal Catholics and non-Catholics, the president announced an “accommodation” for Catholics that would, he said, put the onus for providing free contraception, sterilizations and abortion-inducing drugs on the insurance companies themselves, rather than the institutions. Of course, since no company would ever really provide these for “free,” this amounts to a shell game, and the uproar has not abated from faithful Catholics and those of other faiths who recognize this for the assault on religious freedom that it is.

(Click “like” if you want to end abortion! )

Shortly before the public announcements of the initial decision and the “accommodation,” President Obama phoned then-Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, to tell him about the announcement. He initially told now-Cardinal Dolan that there would be a grace period of a year before the decree went into effect. The archbishop’s comment later was, “The president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.”

The irony in all of this is that the primary proponent of this decree, Kathleen Sebelius, claims to be a Catholic. Nancy Pelosi, House minority leader, also a Catholic, stated, “I strongly support this action to expand access to fundamental, basic health care.” And Catholic Vice President Joseph Biden, while silent on the measure before the “accommodation,” has since been its ardent supporter.

As a Catholic, I am bound by the decrees of Vatican II, an ecumenical council. And this council, summarizing the traditions of the Church, declared, “In the depths of their conscience, men and women detect a law which they do not impose on themselves but which holds them to obedience, a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of men and women. According to it they will be judged.” (GS #16) And yet as a member of a Catholic university I am told by civic authority now that I should be willing to violate my conscience. Indeed, forcing persons to cooperate in actions they judge evil is evil.

I had always thought that the United States, in the light of the Bill of Rights, respected religious freedom; that in fact this was the first of all of our rights. The First Amendment to the Constitution reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Years ago, some people in Florida killed chickens as part of their worship ceremonies. Laws were passed by civil authorities to prevent this. The United States Supreme Court said the laws were unconstitutional, violating the First Amendment. Around the same time, a Native American was fired from his government job because he engaged in smoking peyote as part of a religious ritual. This was initially considered as a violation of substance abuse laws. The Supreme Court reversed that judgment in the light of the First Amendment.

I am trying to understand why my government wants me to violate my conscience. Some say it is in order to penalize Catholic institutions which are a threat to health care policies. One in every six patients in the United States is cared for in a Catholic hospital. More than 50 Catholic health care organizations exist with over 750,000 employees. In Catholic schools, there are more than 150,000 professional educators and over two million students. And more than 200 Catholic colleges and universities serve over 900,000 students. The government wants to get control of their health care. Some people, more radical, claim that the aim of the government is to cause the very demise of Catholic schools and hospitals, because they are in conflict with the direction in which the secular elites want to take our nation.

What is to be done? I do not know at the moment, other than prayer, fasting and contacting our elected leaders. One thing I do know is that I will not violate my conscience. Ever.

A version of this article originally appeared in Today’s Catholic, the newspaper of the Archdiocese of San Antonio. Father John A. Leies, SM, STD, is a Contributing Writer of HLI America. He is president emeritus of St. Mary’s University and formerly served as head of the Theology Department there. His recent writings may be found at HLI America’s Truth and Charity Forum.

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

New study warns parents about ‘discriminating’ against their ‘gender-nonconforming’ kids

by Peter Baklinski Tue Feb 21 15:54 EST Comments (16)

BOSTON, Massachusetts, February 21, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Harvard study has found an association in young people who were exposed to childhood “physical, psychological, and sexual abuse” and who experienced childhood “gender nonconformity.” While it is not surprising that such a link exists, what is astonishing is how the authors of the study flip the association between the two on its head.

“We identify gender nonconformity as an indicator of children at increased risk of abuse and probable PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder],” the authors state.

The authors call for pediatricians and school health providers to “consider abuse screening for this vulnerable population.” They also call for further research to understand “how gender nonconformity might increase risk of abuse and to develop family interventions to reduce abuse risk.”

The above statements make clear the framework in which the authors interpret their data and reach conclusions. Instead of viewing the child’s “gender noncomformity” as the anomaly that requires professional help so that the child can become a self-fulfilled little boy or little girl, it is suggested that it is simply the parents’ negative reaction to their child’s gender nonconformity that is the cause of the child’s trauma.

“The abuse we examined was mostly perpetrated by parents or other adults in the home. Parents need to be aware that discrimination against gender nonconformity affects one in 10 kids, affects kids at a very young age, and has lasting impacts on health,” said lead author Andrea Roberts, a research associate in the Department of Society, Human Development, and Health at Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH).

The study titled “Childhood Gender Nonconformity: A Risk Indicator for Childhood Abuse and Posttraumatic Stress in Youth” appeared online yesterday in Pediatrics, the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The study is reportedly the first to use a population-based sample to look at the relation between gender nonconformity and abuse. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

The researchers analyzed questionnaire data collected from a project called “Growing Up Today” in which 9000 young adults were asked to recall childhood experience about “behaviours during childhood up to age 11 years, regarding media characters imitated or admired, roles taken in pretend play, favorite toys and games, and feelings of femininity or masculinity.”

What is especially staggering about this report is while the authors make it clear that their study “cannot determine the causal relationship between abuse and gender nonconformity” they assume that it is normal and healthy for a child to choose whether or not to conform to his or her biological sex. Perhaps this is why they use the phrase “gender nonconformity” instead of “gender confused” to indicate this “vulnerable” portion of the population.

The authors wear their Kinseyian bias thickly on their sleeve, namely that children are sexual beings capable of sexual self-determination.

“Some parents may be uncomfortable with gender nonconformity in their children, possibly increasing their likelihood of being abusive toward gender-nonconforming children,” the authors state.

“Some parents also believe their own parenting can shape their child’s gender nonconformity and future sexual orientation; thus, their parenting may become more physically or psychologically abusive in an attempt to discourage their child’s gender nonconformity or same-sex orientation.”

The final advice by Roberts may leave many parents wondering if researchers have completely lost their aptitude to name a serious disorder.

“If [parents] have a kid whose behaviour is not gender typical, they really need to be supportive and protective of those kids,” she said, adding that the “consequences of intolerance can be quite serious.”

Such advice might leave parents agreeing with Dr. Paul McHugh, psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, who criticized those in his profession who would rather “collaborate with a mental disorder rather than to treat it.”

McHugh might berate such researchers with the final words of an article he wrote about gender reassignment surgery: “We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it.”

Children deserve real help, not pseudo social science that supports a boy who thinks he is really a girl or a girl who thinks she is really a boy.

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

Brazilian government demands apology from televangelist for ‘homophobia’

by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman Tue Feb 21 15:23 EST Comments (5)

 
Silas Malafia

February 21, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Brazilian federal prosecutor is demanding that a televangelist retract certain statements he made in 2011 which the prosecutor says incited “hatred” against homosexuals - a thinly veiled threat of future legal action.

“The people in the Gay Parade mock the symbols of the Catholic Church and no one says anything,” televangelist Silas Malafaia reportedly said. “The Catholic Church should take a stick to these guys, you know? They should lower the club on them.”

Malafaia has reportedly responded to criticisms that he was inciting violence against homosexuals by stating that by “take a stick” (“entrar de pau”) and “lower the club” (“baixar o porrete) he meant the Church should “formulate criticisms, take legal actions.”

In his remarks Malafaia was referring to the desecration of sacred images that occur regularly in homosexual parades in Brazil.

Federal prosecutor Jefferson Apareceido Dias says the comments contain “clear homophobic content, because they incite violence against homosexuals” and “constitute hate speech, incompatible with he constitutional functions of social communication.”  He is demanding that Malafaia give a public retraction, devoting double the time to his apology as he did to the original statements.

Malafaia, a minister with the Victory in Christ Assembly of God whose broadcasts are viewed by millions in Brazil, the United States, and many other countries, says the accusation against him is “absurd.”

“I am absolutely not going to retract. The gays manipulate my statements to incriminate me, and I am the one who has to retract? This must be a joke.”

The threat against Malafaia reflects a growing conflict between the regime of socialist president Dilma Rousseff and religious broadcasters, who were largely responsible for her near-defeat in the 2010 presidential elections.

Following objections by Evangelicals and Catholics to Rousseff’s pro-abortion and homosexualist record, she found her poll numbers dropping, and was forced into a runoff with one of her three major opponents. She then signed a statement promising not to initiate pro-abortion or homosexualist legislation during her term in office.

Socialist government authorities are also seeking to withdraw the broadcasting license of the Catholic New Song (Cancao Nova) television network, whose programs have also been critical of the social policies of the ruling Worker’s Party.

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

Boy born with heart outside his body astonishes doctors: parents rejected abortion

by Thaddeus Baklinski Tue Feb 21 14:21 EST Comments (33)

 

PENNSYLVANIA, February 21, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Ryan Marquiss, now three years old, was diagnosed with two rare heart conditions when his mother Leighann was twelve weeks pregnant. Although Leighann and Ryan’s father Henry were told by doctors that no child had survived these conditions and advised the parents to abort him, they chose instead to hope for the best and rejected abortion.

Doctors said that Ryan had only half a heart, called hypoplastic right heart syndrome. This was compounded by ectopia cordis, where his heart protruded from his chest cavity, covered only by a thin membrane.

“The doctors told us that no baby with Ryan’s combination of defects had ever survived, so the fact that he is here with us today, is just amazing. He really has astounded everyone,” Leighann told the Daily Mail.

“We wanted to let nature take its course, so we refused to have the termination,” Leighann said. “We knew it would be a miracle if he survived the birth but we were unwilling to take matters into our own hands.”

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

The Marquiss’s revealed that Ryan was born by caesarian section at the Children’s National Medical Centre in Washington at the end of February, 2009, with a team of 30 medical professionals in attendance.

“All the odds were stacked against him. We knew that it was a miracle that he had been born alive with his heart outside his body, but then to have another life-threatening condition of only having half a heart meant that everything was against him surviving,” Leighann said.

“But he was alive and we just had to pray that he would carry on fighting.”

Ryan’s first surgery at two weeks involved placing a shunt in his heart to ensure proper circulation. This was followed by more than a dozen operations over the next two years.

“He just kept on fighting. He refused to die, and he kept on proving everyone wrong,” Leighann recalled.

The Marquiss’s remarked that their son may need further operations, possibly including a heart transplant sometime in the future, but that his life so far has been astounding, and a blessing to his parents and two sisters.

“He really is a medical miracle. When I look at him running around the playground and playing on the climbing wall, I praise God. Every day with Ryan is one we were told we wouldn’t have. So we cherish each moment,” Leighann said.

You can follow Ryan’s progress at the family’s blog here.

Tags: abortion

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

Brazil government scrambles to repair damage with Evangelicals after pro-abort appointment

by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman Tue Feb 21 12:30 EST Comments (1)

 
Eleonora Menicucci

February 21, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff and her administration are seeking to mend fences with the powerful Evangelical caucus of the National Congress following her recent decision to appoint abortion enthusiast Eleonora Menicucci as her Minister of Women’s Policies.

In an attempt to head off a revolt against her administration by the caucus, known as the Evangelical Parliamentary Front, Rousseff sent Secretary General of the Presidency Gilberto Carvalho to reassure the group that the president has not changed her claimed opposition to abortion, nor reneged on her 2010 campaign promise not to introduce legislation to legalize the deadly procedure. Menicucci’s pro-abortion position, Carvalho said, is a private opinion.

“President Dilma has asked that I reaffirm for the caucus that the position of the government regarding abortion is the position that she took in the electoral campaign, and which is explicit in all of that process and that the positions we the ministers hold publicly are not individual positions,” said Carvalho. “They are positions of the government, and the position of the government regarding that issue will be absolutely clear and will continue to be so.”

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

The hiring of Menicucci has caused an eruption of controversy in Brazil, whose electorate is strongly religious and pro-life.  Menicucci has a history not only of supporting the legalization of abortion, but has even boasted of being trained to do abortions in Colombia, and of having had two of her own children aborted.

Menicucci has also spoken proudly of her homosexual trysts and sexual promiscuity during her previous career as a member of a communist revolutionary organization during the 1970s. Menicucci was imprisoned in the same facility as Rousseff herself, who was also a member of a violent revolutionary group at the time.

Carvalho also found himself forced to apologize to the caucus for remarks he recently made at a meeting of the World Social Forum, in which he reportedly spoke against Evangelical influences on the lower classes of society through the media.  He has also been accused of having counseled the creation of programming to counter the Evangelical influence, which he denied.

“The apology I made was not for my words, but for the feelings that they caused in some deputies and senators,” Carvalho told the press later.

Tension run high between the presidential administration of Dilma Rousseff and many televangelists, whose preaching contradicts the leftist social agenda of Rousseff’s labor party.

Following a three-hour closed-door meeting with the caucus, members reportedly expressed some degree of satisfaction with Carvalho’s “apology,” but remained circumspect.

“Pardoning is different than forgetting,” Evangelical deputy Anthony Garotinho told the Estado de Sao Paulo newspaper.

 

Tags: abortion, brazil

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

What if arguments for abortion were applied to infants?

by Murray Vasser Tue Feb 21 11:42 EST Comments (25)

 

You would get something that sounds like this…

7 Arguments for Infanticide

1. Abortion costs money, and many poor people do not have the money to spare on abortion, especially in developing countries. Infanticide, on the other hand, is absolutely free. The procedure requires no doctor’s consultation, no medication, and no follow up visit. It requires no special equipment and can be performed with any number of common household items, such as a kitchen knife or even a shoestring.

2. Criminalizing infanticide is dangerous for women. In societies where infanticide is illegal, young women who do not want their child, but who have neglected to have an abortion, are forced to secretly dispose of their babies in back alleys or public restrooms. Giving birth alone, without any medical care, is extremely dangerous, especially in such unsanitary environments. When legal, however, infanticide is 100% safe. There are absolutely no health risks associated with the procedure.

3. Women have the right to choose. To rob a woman of her infanticide rights is to rob her of her reproductive freedom. Don’t like infanticide? Then don’t do it!

4. Infanticide prevents unwanted children. For example, some mothers do not know that their child is physically or mentally handicapped until after the child has been born. It is a great injustice that these mothers are now forced by the state to raise a child they do not want.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!

5. Infanticide is ultimately better for children. Unwanted children are much more likely to experience abuse or neglect; infanticide ensures that every child is a wanted child.

6. Infanticide benefits society. In developing countries, particularly those affected by the Aids epidemic, orphanages are overcrowded and the streets are swarming with homeless children. Countless millions are expended every year to keep these children alive, when the money could be used much more effectively to build economies and create jobs. Infanticide, administered systematically on a large scale, would relieve societies of this burden, thus creating a better world for all.

7. Criminalizing infanticide violates the separation of church and state. Those who oppose infanticide rights do so because they believe it is evil to kill children, but this assertion cannot be proven empirically by the scientific method. Thus it is merely a personal opinion based on religious beliefs, and as such, it cannot form the basis of public policy in a secular democracy.

Murray Vasser is a 25-year-old student who blogs here. This article reprinted with permission from Live Action’s blog.

Tags: abortion, live action

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

Pro-choice and not pro-abortion? Then why oppose the sonogram laws?

by Paul Pauker Tue Feb 21 11:07 EST Comments (21)

 

February 21, 2012 (LiveAction.org) - The decisions by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to uphold the Texas sonogram law and deny a request to rehear the appeal have set off a firestorm of complaints from pro-choice forces.

Setting aside the rhetoric, the importance of the sonogram law and the appellate decisions upholding the law can be demonstrated by considering a different opinion from a different court delivered only a few months ago.

In 2011, in Doe v. Planned Parenthood Chicago Area, the 1st District Appellate Court of Illinois rejected a woman’s lawsuit against an abortion clinic. The woman, identified as Mary Doe, previously had an abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic. Justice Rodolfo Garcia, writing the appellate opinion, held:

We accept as true the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint. On December 8, 2004, the plaintiff, 19 years old and about 12 weeks pregnant, sought counseling and assistance from the defendant Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area (PP), an abortion clinic. The plaintiff asked a PP counselor whether an abortion would terminate the life of a human being in the biological sense. The counselor replied in the negative. The plaintiff told the counselor that she had been informed by a pregnancy help center that an abortion terminates the life of a human being. The counselor replied that pregnancy help centers often deliberately misrepresent the facts to prospective mothers. The counselor assured her that an abortion did not terminate the life of a human being. Given this assurance, the plaintiff decided to have an abortion that same day.

Justice Garcia then reviewed a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling from 2007, Acuna v. Turkish, and concluded:

We echo the observation of the New Jersey Supreme Court. No court, regardless of where it sits, has found a common law duty requiring doctors to tell their pregnant patients that aborting an embryo, or fetus, is the killing of an existing human being.

In sum, despite finding that Planned Parenthood had assured the expectant mother abortion does not terminate the life of a human being, and despite accepting that the expectant mother would not have had the abortion if told otherwise, the Appellate Court of Illinois rejected the lawsuit.

Needless to say, since the courts are unable to find a common law duty requiring doctors and other abortion providers to tell the truth, it clearly is necessary for the state legislatures to pass laws establishing the duty. Otherwise, a woman has not given an informed consent.

And, unfortunately, as demonstrated by the Illinois and New Jersey legal cases, and documented by the Live Action undercover investigations, the “health” providers at Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics have concealed the scientific facts of early human development in order to persuade women to have abortions.

Certainly, a legitimate health provider, when asked something about human embryology, could simply open one of the human embryology textbooks used in medical schools, and read the facts as described by the experts on the subject.

For example, Harvard Medical School uses Langman’s Medical Embryology by T.W. Sadler, and the Yale School of Medicine uses The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology by Drs. Keith L. Moore, T.V.N. Persaud, and Mark G. Torchia.

And every human embryology textbook, and every human embryologist, states that human life begins at conception, specifically, at fertilization.

But pro-choice advocates, including judges, politicians, abortion industry insiders, and supporters in the mainstream media, employ the deceptive tactic of finding scientists who dispute when human life begins and claim the question is an ideological or religious one.

In doing so, the impression created is that science has not answered the question of when human life begins. The impression is false.

For example, a neurologist is a doctor as is a cardiologist. However, it would be absurd to seek information about how the heart works from a neurologist; for such information one would seek a doctor that is a specialist in the area – a cardiologist. Likewise, it would be absurd to seek information about how the brain works from a cardiologist; for such information one would seek a neurologist.

Yet pro-choice advocates seek information about early human development from any scientist except one that specializes in the area – a human embryologist. Again, this is a deliberate tactic employed to conceal the facts of early human development. Because among human embryologists there is a consensus, and the consensus is that life begins at conception. And, to repeat, human embryologists are the experts in this area.

Now, back to discussing the Texas sonogram law. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “the required disclosures of a sonogram, the fetal heartbeat, and their medical descriptions are the epitome of truthful, non-misleading information.” Chief Judge Edith H. Jones cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that upheld a state’s informed consent law. In that case, the plurality opinion concluding that requiring a doctor to give “truthful, nonmisleading information” to an expectant mother “furthers the legitimate purpose of reducing the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision was not fully informed.”

Supporters of legal abortion constantly insist they are pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Opposition to laws that protect women from deception while providing women the facts necessary for a fully informed choice expose this claim as untrue.

Reprinted with permission from the Live Action blog.

 

Tags: abortion, sonogram, ultrasound

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

The Abortioneers call killing babies a ‘motherly sacrifice,’ support abortion for successful living

by Nancy Flanders Tue Feb 21 10:24 EST Comments (16)

 

February 21, 2012 (LiveAction.org) - Abortionists claim that the pro-life television ad which aired during the Super Bowl ruined everyone’s “chip-dip and light-beer, good times.” Well it should have. The Super Bowl ad was a wake-up call for America, and I hope it knocked millions of people out of their brainwashed, ignorant, “abortion isn’t murder” frame of mind. It’s the ones that know abortion is murder and still support it that we have to fear, because people who advocate the murder of innocent children should be considered armed and dangerous.

Take The Abortioneers for instance. This group of abortion practitioners blog about what life is like when your job is killing babies. And on February 5, they admitted that abortion is “the loss of human life”. They also referred to it as a “motherly sacrifice”. Interesting. I thought motherly sacrifice was about sacrificing your own wants for your child so that your child can live, grow, and succeed. I had no idea that a motherly sacrifice involved killing your child so that you don’t have to make any changes to your life.

The Abortioneers not only know what abortion really is, and choose to make money off it, they also believe that motherhood and success cannot go hand in hand. In the same post in which they slam the pro-life commercial as desecrating a “motherly sacrifice”, they praise Misopolis: Abortion for Successful Living.

(Click “like” if you want to end abortion! )

Women on Waves and The Yes Men created the Misopolis website as an attack against Diesel (the clothing brand). It is based on Metropolis, a 1920s classic, and misoprostol, an early abortion drug. The site claims to be about labor injustices against women, and it includes a lack of access to abortion in those injustices. Confused yet?

From Women on Waves: “Women on Waves designed a hoax campaign ‘Diesel for Women’ to expose the violations of women’s rights that take place in the garment industry. The hoax is a parody on the PR campaigns and the reluctance to address human rights by the fashion industry in general and Diesel in particular. It intends to show that violations of human rights never happen in isolation and that the right to a safe abortion is connected with the broader framework of social rights, workers rights and the right to autonomy.”

Misopolis’ homepage says that, “We have a stupid dream. What if we gave female factory workers the same rights as successful people? A factory where they decide over their own bodies. Where they can have happy accidents without consequences. A factory for only the brave.” It goes on to call abortion pills a gift from God. It says that abstinence is “f***ed up”. And it continues with sacrilegious photos and tag lines including “immaculate contraception” and “happy communion in misopolis” (which depicts an orgy). If orgies, abortion pills, and the death of innocent babies are what define success today, then this country is in bigger trouble than any of us realize. Diesel reacted with anger, and we should all do the same.

Abortion ads are disturbing, just as photos of any human who has been ripped apart or chemically burned to death would be. But with marketing tactics like Misopolis, abortionists are reaching the already misguided youth of our world and pulling them into a life of despair and empty relationships. If it takes unsettling pro-life television ads to show people the truth about abortion, then bring ‘em on.

Reprinted with permission from LiveAction’s blog.

Print Article  |  Email Friend  |  Back to Top | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

back to top