OpinionFri Aug 31, 2012 - 1:08 pm EST
Planned Parenthood’s cancer screening initiative is a joke
August 31, 2012 (STOPP.org) - Planned Parenthood Federation of America and various affiliates have released scads of stories over the past week touting a new breast cancer initiative. The $3 million it says will fund the initiative is the amount Planned Parenthood claims it raised in four days in response to the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s quickly-rescinded announcement that it would stop funding the abortion giant.
So, what about this huge investment of $3 million Cecile Richards says she is earmarking for breast cancer screening and education? To put it in perspective, Planned Parenthood’s total income in 2010 was $1.04 billion. The three million dollars it says it will commit to the breast cancer initiative is less than one perecent of its total annual income.
Planned Parenthood gets $1.3 million from the government each and every day of the year. It is earmarking an amount equal to a bit more than two days of its government income to “expand” its breast cancer screening and education. Seriously, Planned Parenthood? You want us to believe that you are serious about providing real healthcare services for women? Especially when we consider that PPFA pocketed in excess of $164 million in 2010 alone from killing innocent preborn children, and untold millions from handing out cancer-causing birth control?
This entire expansion nonsense represents some big-time drama on the part of Planned Parenthood, all for the hope of positive publicity and future funding. Under attack from every direction, the abortion mogul desperately needs to put on a good face for the public so it can continue to improve its standing in the community, expand its government funding, and increase its abortion business.
While it touts this “new” initiative, the fact remains that Planned Parenthood is not licensed to do anything beyond Level 1 manual breast exams - the same exam that a woman can do in the privacy of her own home. According to a Reuters article from msnbc.com that quotes Planned Parenthood head Cecile Richards, her true intention appears to be to “fund” some ultrasounds, biopsies, and other follow-up services. A quick reading would imply that Planned Parenthood is expanding services, but a closer look shows that, while it may actually add some new offerings, it may very well just plan more referrals, some of them possibly funded by Planned Parenthood. It also plans to use the money to reach out more to Hispanic women - already a huge item on Planned Parenthood’s agenda. It says it will provide new, unnamed educational resources for women. And, oh yes, it will add a new, unnamed, unexplained “screening tool for the network’s doctors and nurses.”
Bottom line: Planned Parenthood has to do something to make people think it cares about women’s health. It raised some money by bullying the Susan G. Komen Foundation, and thought it would be wise, obviously, to mount yet another publicity campaign to pat itself on the back for supposedly saving women’s lives.
As Pope Benedict XVI recently said, falsehood, or insincerity, is the mark of the devil. Planned Parenthood exists only because of its artfully constructed walls of insincerity, lies, and deception. But those walls are starting to crumble, as more and more people come to understand that the only reliable thing about the abortion giant is that you can count on it to lie. The master of deception will not survive the truth.
Without a government committed to propping it up, it would crumble and turn to dust overnight. Planned Parenthood is an integral part of the government’s machinery that is working to downsize and eventually destroy America. By exercising our right to vote, and working continually to expose Planned Parenthood’s evil role in the decline of our society, we can make a huge difference.
As a nonprofit 501(c)(3) pro-life educational organization, American Life League (as well as other similar nonprofit organizations) can neither endorse nor oppose a candidate for political office at any level. We suggest to those who inquire, however, that they review our Voter Guide and become informed of the candidates’ positions and then make a decision from there.
Be sure you and your friends and family members are registered to vote, and do everything you can to get them to the polls, fully armed with education about the stance of those on the ballot. The deadline for registration is fast approaching. Make some phone calls today to make sure everyone in your circle of friends is registered and ready to vote in this most crucial upcoming November election.
Rita Diller is the national director of Stop Planned Parenthood (STOPP). This article first appeared in STOPP’s Wednesday report, and is reprinted with permission
‘Little miracles’: Mom gives birth to naturally-conceived quintuplets after refusing ‘selective reduction’
AUSTRALIA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A 26-year-old Australian mom has given birth to five healthy babies, all conceived naturally, after refusing the doctor’s advice that she must abort three of them in order to give the remaining two a better chance at life.
“After my initial ultrasound I was told I could consider the selection method to give 2 babies the best chance in life,” wrote mom Kim Tucci in a Facebook post last September.
“I watched a YouTube video on the procedure and I cried. I could never do that! Was I selfish for not giving two the chance of 100% survival? All I knew is that I already love them and that every heart beat I heard I connect with them more. For me life starts when a heart starts beating and all I know for sure is that I will do whatever it takes to bring them into this world healthy,” she wrote.
Last Thursday Kim and her husband Vaughn welcomed the five new members into their family — one boy and four girls —increasing the number of their children from 3 to 8. The babies were born at 30 weeks, 10 weeks early, due to insufficient space in Kim’s womb. They weighed on average about 2.5 pounds.
The quintuplets’ story began last March, after Kim and Vaughn had been trying for six months to conceive just one more child for their family. Due to health complications, Kim wondered if she would ever become a mother again.
After what she thought was an extra long cycle, she decided to take a pregnancy test.
“I was feeling tired and a little nauseated and thought I would take a pregnancy test just to get the ‘what if’ out of my head. To my shock and utter excitement it was positive,” she wrote on a Facebook post.
The parents got the shock of their lives when doctors confirmed in an ultrasound examination that there was not one baby, but five.
“After a long wait for the ultrasound we finally went in. The sonographer told me there were multiple gestational sacks, but she could only see a heart beat in two. I was so excited! Twins!”
“I was moved to another machine for a clearer view and had the head doctor come in and double check the findings. She started to count, one, two, three, four, five. Did i hear that correctly? Five? My legs start to shake uncontrollably and all i can do is laugh. The sonographer then told me the term for five is ‘quintuplets,’” Kim wrote.
Even though Kim began to feel stretched to the limit with all those human lives growing inside her, she chose to focus on her babies, and not herself, referring to them as “my five little miracles.”
“It's getting harder as each day passes to push through the pain, every part of my body aches and sleeping is becoming very painful. No amount of pillows are helping support my back and belly. Sometimes I get so upset that I just want to throw my hands up and give in.”
“Sometimes my pelvis becomes so stiff I can barely walk and my hips feel like they are grinding away constantly. I'm finding it hard to eat as I basically have no room left in my stomach, and the way it is positioned it's pushed all the way back with the babies leaning against it.”
“My skin on my belly is so stretched its painful and hot to touch. It literally feels like I have hives! No amount of cream helps relieve the discomfort. I have a lot of stretch marks now. Dealing with such a huge change in my body is hard.”
“Is it all worth it? Yes!!!! I will keep pushing through,” she wrote in one Facebook post days before the babies were born.
The newborns' names are Keith, Ali, Penelope, Tiffany, and Beatrix. They were born at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Subiaco, Western Australia. Mother and babies are reported to be doing well.
View CommentsClick to view or comment.
Share this article
UN rights chief tells Catholic countries to legalize abortion over Zika virus: bishops and cardinal react
GENEVA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- The United Nations, following the lead of international abortion activists, is now urging Latin American countries hit by the mosquito-borne Zika virus to lift restrictions on abortion for pregnant women who have contacted the virus and whose pre-born children may be at risk for birth defects, including having smaller than normal heads.
The UN human rights office said today that it is not enough for South American countries to urge women to postpone pregnancy without also offering them abortion as a final solution.
“How can they ask these women not to become pregnant, but not offer… the possibility to stop their pregnancies?” UN spokeswoman Cecile Pouilly told reporters.
UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said that governments should make available contraception and abortion services.
“Laws and policies that restrict (women’s) access to these services must be urgently reviewed in line with human rights obligations in order to ensure the right to health for all in practice,” he said.
But Brazil’s bishops strongly asserted yesterday that efforts should be made to eradicate the virus, not the people who may be infected by it.
The disease is “no justification whatsoever to promote abortion,” they said in a statement, adding that it is not morally acceptable to promote abortion “in the cases of microcephaly, as, unfortunately, some groups are proposing to the Supreme Federal Court, in a total lack of respect for the gift of life.”
Honduras Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has also come out strongly against the notion of “therapeutic abortions” as a response to the problem. Unlike Brazil where abortion is legal in the case of rape or health of the mother, abortion remains entirely illegal in Honduras.
“We should never talk about ‘therapeutic’ abortion,” the cardinal said in a homily at a February 3 Mass in Suyap. “Therapeutic abortion doesn’t exist. Therapeutic means curing, and abortion cures nothing. It takes innocent lives,” he said.
While the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an international public health emergency February 1 on account of concerns over the virus, critics have pointed out, however, that not one death as resulted from the virus. Even on WHO’s own website the virus is described in mild terms.
“It causes mild fever and rash. Other symptoms include muscle pain, joint pain, headache, pain behind the eyes and conjunctivitis. Zika virus disease is usually mild, with symptoms lasting only a few days,” the website states. “To date, there have been no reported deaths associated with Zika virus,” it added.
Critics suspect that the crisis is being manipulated to advance an anti-human agenda on the pre-born.
“Is Zika, actually, a hideous virus that threatens to spread uncontrollably across the world creating an army of disabled children with tiny heads and low IQ’s? Or might this be a willful misinterpretation of the scarce data to manipulate public opinion and legislatures?” wrote pro-life critic Mei-Li Garcia earlier this week.
“It becomes very clear that the publicity surrounding this story has a very little to do with medicine and a lot to do with a convenient crisis that is being used by those pushing for the legalization of abortion around the world,” she wrote.
View CommentsClick to view or comment.
Share this article
Hillary’s litmus test for Supreme Court picks: They must ‘preserve Roe v. Wade’
DERRY, NH, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - Hillary Clinton has a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees - several, in fact. At a Democratic event on Wednesday, Clinton unveiled her criteria in selecting a judge for the nation's highest court.
“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests," she said.
"We’ve got to make sure to preserve Roe v. Wade, not let it be nibbled away or repealed,” she said.
That echoes her recent call to arms speech before Planned Parenthood last month, when she stated that taxpayers must fund abortion-on-demand in order to uphold the "right" of choice.
“We have to preserve marriage equality,” Clinton said, referring to last summer's Obergefell v. Hodges case, a 5-4 ruling that redefined marriage nationwide. “We have to go further to end discrimination against the LGBT community."
Her views differentiate her from the Republican front runners. Ted Cruz has called the court's marriage ruling "fundamentally illegitimate," and Donald Trump told Fox News Sunday this week that he would "be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things." Marco Rubio has said he won't "concede" the issue to the one-vote majority.
All Republican presidential hopefuls say they are pro-life and will defund Planned Parenthood.
Her husband, Bill Clinton, raised the makeup of the Supreme Court early last month in New Hampshire, saying it receives "almost no attention" as a campaign issue.
On Wednesday, Hillary said "the next president could get as many as three appointments. It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.”
Clinton said her judicial appointees must also reverse the Citizens United ruling on campaign finance and oppose a recent decision striking down a portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, justices struck down Section 4(b) of the act, which said that certain states and jurisdictions had to obtain permission from the federal government before changing their voting laws.
At one time, most politicians frowned upon any "litmus test" for judicial nominees, emphasizing the independence of the third branch of government. "I don't believe in litmus tests," Jeb Bush told Chuck Todd last November.
But with the rise of an activist judiciary in the middle of the 20th century, constitutionalists have sought to rein in the power of the bench.