On this Father's Day what has been on my mind is all the fathers who have lost their fatherhood to abortion. My husband is one of them. How many fathers suffer today because of their loss to abortion? How many men out there suffer as women do because of abortion? How many men don't even think of it because they do not feel they had any rights in keeping that child? Men are really lost in this issue and need to speak up so much more.....if they did I know abortion would not have the high numbers of occurrence it does today.
I pray for those men who suffer and for those who suffer and do not understand why. And...I thank my own father in heaven for choosing life.
Happy Father's Day.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Thursday, June 16, 2011
This n that corrected
It is hard to believe it has been since May 6th that I posted a blog...many wonderful things have happened in between. But this blog is about pro-life and I would like to say I was one of the few people who watched the Republican debate this week....I must say it was refreshing to see so many candidates talk about pro-life and their stance..what struck me was their non-hesitancy to do so....it is an upfront issue and one that each and every candidate must talk about...and we as voters MUST educate ourselves on all issues but then again what could be more important than the life issue. This is what Senator Santorum had to say:
Since announcing his bid for the 2012 Republican nomination for president, former Sen. Rick Santorum has not been shy about touting his anti-abortion views, which he’ll be discussing next week at the National Right to Life conference in Jacksonville. An anti-abortion rights stalwart, Santorum has long been vocal in the charge to ban partial-birth abortions, and was the primary sponsor of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997 during his time as a U.S. senator from Pennsylvania. Some of Santorum’s past endorsements of abortion proponents have already come back to haunt him. A robo-call released in March of last year called him a “pro-life fraud” for his support of ”the abortion-promoting governor of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman” and “radical abortionist Sen. Arlen Specter.” During an interview on a conservative radio talk show, Santorum slammed Indiana governor Mitch Daniels for remarks that a “mute button” should be pressed on issues like abortion, to allow for a renewed focus on the economy. As quoted on the site LifeNews.com, Santorum said that Daniels’ talk of a “truce” was “far off base”: I don’t think he understands what conservatism is all about. … I don’t think he understands that Reagan’s three-legged stool is not just that we have three legs of the stool, the social conservative, the fiscal conservative and national security conservatives, but that the material made of all three parts of the stool is the same. … And it’s a moral and cultural heritage of this country, is what that stool, the material itself that the stool is made of. On Sunday’s Meet the Press, Santorum told host David Gregory that his beliefs were so strong that he felt abortion was murder even in cases of rape or incest and that all abortion doctors should be “criminally charged.” “I want to be clear on this. Do you believe that there should be any legal exceptions for rape or incest when it comes to abortion?” Gregory asked. “I believe that life begins at conception and that that life should be guaranteed under the constitution. … I believe that any doctor that performs an abortion should be criminally charged for doing so. I’ve never supported criminalization of abortion for mothers, but I do for people that perform them,” said Santorum. Santorum will be in Jacksonville next week, to make an appearance at the 2011 National Right to Life convention. He is slated to take part in a candidate forum alongside fellow GOP presidential nominees Herman Cain and Ron Paul.What do you think?
Since announcing his bid for the 2012 Republican nomination for president, former Sen. Rick Santorum has not been shy about touting his anti-abortion views, which he’ll be discussing next week at the National Right to Life conference in Jacksonville. An anti-abortion rights stalwart, Santorum has long been vocal in the charge to ban partial-birth abortions, and was the primary sponsor of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997 during his time as a U.S. senator from Pennsylvania. Some of Santorum’s past endorsements of abortion proponents have already come back to haunt him. A robo-call released in March of last year called him a “pro-life fraud” for his support of ”the abortion-promoting governor of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman” and “radical abortionist Sen. Arlen Specter.” During an interview on a conservative radio talk show, Santorum slammed Indiana governor Mitch Daniels for remarks that a “mute button” should be pressed on issues like abortion, to allow for a renewed focus on the economy. As quoted on the site LifeNews.com, Santorum said that Daniels’ talk of a “truce” was “far off base”: I don’t think he understands what conservatism is all about. … I don’t think he understands that Reagan’s three-legged stool is not just that we have three legs of the stool, the social conservative, the fiscal conservative and national security conservatives, but that the material made of all three parts of the stool is the same. … And it’s a moral and cultural heritage of this country, is what that stool, the material itself that the stool is made of. On Sunday’s Meet the Press, Santorum told host David Gregory that his beliefs were so strong that he felt abortion was murder even in cases of rape or incest and that all abortion doctors should be “criminally charged.” “I want to be clear on this. Do you believe that there should be any legal exceptions for rape or incest when it comes to abortion?” Gregory asked. “I believe that life begins at conception and that that life should be guaranteed under the constitution. … I believe that any doctor that performs an abortion should be criminally charged for doing so. I’ve never supported criminalization of abortion for mothers, but I do for people that perform them,” said Santorum. Santorum will be in Jacksonville next week, to make an appearance at the 2011 National Right to Life convention. He is slated to take part in a candidate forum alongside fellow GOP presidential nominees Herman Cain and Ron Paul.What do you think?
This n that
It is hard to believe it has been since May 6th that I posted a blog...many wonderful things have happened in between. But this blog is about pro-life and I would like to say I was one of the few people who watched the Republican debate this week....I must say it was refreshing to see so many candidates talk about pro-life and their stance..waht struck me was their non-hesitancy to do so....it is an upfrnt issue and one that each and every candidate must talk about...and we as voters MUST educate oursleves on all issues but then again what could be more important than the life issue.
This is what Senator Santorum had to say:
Since announcing his bid for the 2012 Republican nomination for president, former Sen. Rick Santorum has not been shy about touting his anti-abortion views, which he’ll be discussing next week at the National Right to Life conference in Jacksonville.
An anti-aborton rights stalwart, Santorum has long been vocal in the charge to ban partial-birth abortions, and was the primary sponsor of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997 during his time as a U.S. senator from Pennsylvania.
Some of Santorum’s past endorsements of abortion proponents have already come back to haunt him. A robo-call released in March of last year called him a “pro-life fraud” for his support of ”the abortion-promoting governor of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman” and “radical abortionist Sen. Arlen Specter.”
During an interview on a conservative radio talk show, Santorum slammed Indiana governor Mitch Daniels for remarks that a “mute button” should be pressed on issues like abortion, to allow for a renewed focus on the economy. As quoted on the site LifeNews.com, Santorum said that Daniels’ talk of a “truce” was “far off base”:
I don’t think he understands what conservatism is all about. … I don’t think he understands that Reagan’s three-legged stool is not just that we have three legs of the stool, the social conservative, the fiscal conservative and national security conservatives, but that the material made of all three parts of the stool is the same. … And it’s a moral and cultural heritage of this country, is what that stool, the material itself that the stool is made of.
On Sunday’s Meet the Press, Santorum told host David Gregory that his beliefs were so strong that he felt abortion was murder even in cases of rape or incest and that all abortion doctors should be “criminally charged.”
“I want to be clear on this. Do you believe that there should be any legal exceptions for rape or incest when it comes to abortion?” Gregory asked.
“I believe that life begins at conception and that that life should be guaranteed under the constitution. … I believe that any doctor that performs an abortion should be criminally charged for doing so. I’ve never supported criminalization of abortion for mothers, but I do for people that perform them,” said Santorum.
Santorum will be in Jacksonville next week, to make an appearance at the 2011 National Right to Life convention. He is slated to take part in a candidate forum alongside fellow GOP presidential nominees Herman Cain and Ron Paul.
What do you think?
This is what Senator Santorum had to say:
Since announcing his bid for the 2012 Republican nomination for president, former Sen. Rick Santorum has not been shy about touting his anti-abortion views, which he’ll be discussing next week at the National Right to Life conference in Jacksonville.
An anti-aborton rights stalwart, Santorum has long been vocal in the charge to ban partial-birth abortions, and was the primary sponsor of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997 during his time as a U.S. senator from Pennsylvania.
Some of Santorum’s past endorsements of abortion proponents have already come back to haunt him. A robo-call released in March of last year called him a “pro-life fraud” for his support of ”the abortion-promoting governor of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman” and “radical abortionist Sen. Arlen Specter.”
During an interview on a conservative radio talk show, Santorum slammed Indiana governor Mitch Daniels for remarks that a “mute button” should be pressed on issues like abortion, to allow for a renewed focus on the economy. As quoted on the site LifeNews.com, Santorum said that Daniels’ talk of a “truce” was “far off base”:
I don’t think he understands what conservatism is all about. … I don’t think he understands that Reagan’s three-legged stool is not just that we have three legs of the stool, the social conservative, the fiscal conservative and national security conservatives, but that the material made of all three parts of the stool is the same. … And it’s a moral and cultural heritage of this country, is what that stool, the material itself that the stool is made of.
On Sunday’s Meet the Press, Santorum told host David Gregory that his beliefs were so strong that he felt abortion was murder even in cases of rape or incest and that all abortion doctors should be “criminally charged.”
“I want to be clear on this. Do you believe that there should be any legal exceptions for rape or incest when it comes to abortion?” Gregory asked.
“I believe that life begins at conception and that that life should be guaranteed under the constitution. … I believe that any doctor that performs an abortion should be criminally charged for doing so. I’ve never supported criminalization of abortion for mothers, but I do for people that perform them,” said Santorum.
Santorum will be in Jacksonville next week, to make an appearance at the 2011 National Right to Life convention. He is slated to take part in a candidate forum alongside fellow GOP presidential nominees Herman Cain and Ron Paul.
What do you think?
Friday, May 6, 2011
Mother's Day
Mother's Day is always a hard day for me and many other women, I know, who have aborted their babies. It is a time of regret, remorse, sorrow and a day you cannot help but look back on and wonder, what if....
I know I have been a mother in so many other ways, and to so many other people and children, and in so many different situations but it never takes the ache away or the regret and, always, you think, what if....
What if I had given birth to my three children, Colleen, Maura and John, and how different my life would be right now....perhaps I would have been able to see them grow up, perhaps I would see them graduate from High School and College, and then to go onto to be parents themselves, because, had I known, I would have given birth and I would have taught them all about life, and how precious life is, and that only God creates that life within you, and you never have the right to eradicate what God has so beautifully created. Perhaps had I given birth to my three children, I would not stare and wonder at other families, at holiday times, what it would be like, if I had my very own children, and my very own 'nucleus' family. I would not dislike holidays as much as I do at times.....it always leaves me with that wretching pain in my stomach and a void in my heart that is indescibable. And I know many of my sisters in Christ share these same feelings, especially, on Mother's Day. However, I do know that life and our mothers are something we always need to celebrate as 'motherless daughters' because, thank God, our mothers chose life.
I pray to my three children and I ask their forgiveness and I continue to do God's work for Him and all that He did for me but also, I do it, for His Mother, our Blessed Mother, and because of her fiat we had her Son, as our Lord and Savior.
As I have said to many women I have spoke to that I don't think you ever really get over the abortions but you know that God has forgiven you and you know you are called to do what is right and to help others know the way, His Way....
Happy Mother's Day.
I know I have been a mother in so many other ways, and to so many other people and children, and in so many different situations but it never takes the ache away or the regret and, always, you think, what if....
What if I had given birth to my three children, Colleen, Maura and John, and how different my life would be right now....perhaps I would have been able to see them grow up, perhaps I would see them graduate from High School and College, and then to go onto to be parents themselves, because, had I known, I would have given birth and I would have taught them all about life, and how precious life is, and that only God creates that life within you, and you never have the right to eradicate what God has so beautifully created. Perhaps had I given birth to my three children, I would not stare and wonder at other families, at holiday times, what it would be like, if I had my very own children, and my very own 'nucleus' family. I would not dislike holidays as much as I do at times.....it always leaves me with that wretching pain in my stomach and a void in my heart that is indescibable. And I know many of my sisters in Christ share these same feelings, especially, on Mother's Day. However, I do know that life and our mothers are something we always need to celebrate as 'motherless daughters' because, thank God, our mothers chose life.
I pray to my three children and I ask their forgiveness and I continue to do God's work for Him and all that He did for me but also, I do it, for His Mother, our Blessed Mother, and because of her fiat we had her Son, as our Lord and Savior.
As I have said to many women I have spoke to that I don't think you ever really get over the abortions but you know that God has forgiven you and you know you are called to do what is right and to help others know the way, His Way....
Happy Mother's Day.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Good Friday
If we ever doubt the love of Jesus just look at the Cross. If we ever doubt that He loves us look at the Cross. We all have weakened times and moments in our life but just look at the Cross and reflect on it. This Holy Week has been profound for me in many ways.....I viewed the movie The Passion once again on Wednesday and each time I see it I see something new....when I was pregnant with my children I wish I could have known more deeply, or know at all, the love of Jesus. I reflected on Mary much moreso this time while watching the movie....the love of her Son, the love for her Son, so deep, as no Mother has ever loved a Son. Imagine her pain, imagine how her heart ached while watching Him carrying the Cross, bloodied from the curse of those who doubted Him. Don't we do the same? We doubt people...rather than doubt we should be helping in carrying their Cross.....that is what our Lord did for us....and he asked us on Holy Thursday to wash other's feet as He had washed their feet. An amazing lesson for us all.
God loves us, forgives us, and died on the Cross for us...let us never forget that..He Thirsts for you and your love. Imagine that.
God loves us, forgives us, and died on the Cross for us...let us never forget that..He Thirsts for you and your love. Imagine that.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Clearing up the misconception about Planned Parenthood and Mammograms
In new emails Susan G. Komen for the Cure is sending to people complaining about their grants to the Planned Parenthood abortion business, officials claim the grants are given to help women obtain breast cancer screenings. Yet, Komen also admits Planned Parenthood doesn’t do mammograms.
Last year, Komen spokesman John Hammarley confirmed 20 of Komen’s 122 affiliates have made donations to Planned Parenthood and, in 2009, those contributions totaled $731,303. He also confirmed Komen affiliates contributed about $3.3 million to the abortion business from 2004-2009.
In a new form letter to one pro-life person who complained about the grants, obtained by LifeNews.com, Komen explains the donations, but says 19 affiliates have donated.
“Thanks very much for writing to share your concern with us. Recent questions have arisen regarding a limited number of Susan G. Komen for the Cure® community grants to Planned Parenthood breast health programs, specifically those designed to provide screening mammograms for vulnerable populations, e.g., low-income and uninsured women,” Komen says. “Currently, 19 Komen for the Cure Affiliates award 19 local grants specifically to Planned Parenthood-sponsored programs in their communities to pay for breast cancer education and breast screenings.”
However, a late March expose’ from Live Action revealed no Planned Parenthood centers nationally provide mammograms.
Live Action released videotaped footage of calls to 30 Planned Parenthood centers nationwide in 27 different states where abortion facility staff were asked whether or not mammograms could be performed on site. Every one of the Planned Parenthood centers admitted they could not do mammograms. Every Planned Parenthood, without exception, tells the women calling that they will have to go elsewhere for a mammogram, and many clinics admit that no Planned Parenthood clinics provide this breast cancer screening procedure.
“We don’t provide those services whatsoever,” admits a staffer at Planned Parenthood of Arizona while a staffer at Planned Parenthood’s Comprehensive Health Center clinic in Overland Park, Kansas tells a caller, “We actually don’t have a, um, mammogram machine, at our clinics.”
In its email to people concerned about the Komen-Planned Parenthood connection, a Komen official admits Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide mammograms for women with its grant money. Komen makes it clear the money is merely funneled through the abortion business to legitimate medical centers that actually perform mammograms.
“When a mammogram is indicated, a patient is often referred to a local program, such as the state’s breast and cervical cancer program. In other cases, the Komen Affiliate’s grant to Planned Parenthood may include funds to pay for mammograms outright. When this happens, a local provider performs the mammogram, and is then reimbursed by Planned Parenthood using the Komen grant funds,” Komen admits.
David Schmidt of Live Action responded to the comments in the new letter from Komen.
“It appears that Komen is getting more inquiries about their affiliation with top US abortion provider Planned Parenthood,” he said. “Notice how Komen plays down their donations to Planned Parenthood by saying a “limited number” of Komen grants have gone to Planned Parenthood.”
He wondered why Komen would give grants to Planned Parenthood rather than legitimate medical centers when the abortion business doesn’t actually help women with mammograms.
“Planned Parenthood doesn’t do mammograms themselves. Why then is Komen giving grants to Planned Parenthood to then in turn pay non-Planned Parenthood health centers to provide mammograms? Why not grant funds directly to the centers performing mammograms?” he asked.
Scmidt also said the grants fail to help the large percentage of women who would never go to the abortion business for legitimate health care.
“Why is Komen’s giving to the largest abortion provider in the United States. Millions of pro-life women do not feel comfortable going to an abortion clinic to get non-abortion services,” he concludes. “Why not give the funds to a non-controversial community health center that all women in the community feel comfortable visiting?”
ACTION: Contact Komen for the Cure to complain about its Planned Parenthood grants at http://ww5.komen.org/Contact.aspx
See the letter below:
Dear Xxxx ,
Thanks very much for writing to share your concern with us. Recent questions have arisen regarding a limited number of Susan G. Komen for the Cure® community grants to Planned Parenthood breast health programs, specifically those designed to provide screening mammograms for vulnerable populations, e.g., low-income and uninsured women.
Currently, 19 Komen for the Cure Affiliates award 19 local grants specifically to Planned Parenthood-sponsored programs in their communities to pay for breast cancer education and breast screenings.
When a mammogram is indicated, a patient is often referred to a local program, such as the state’s breast and cervical cancer program. In other cases, the Komen Affiliate’s grant to Planned Parenthood may include funds to pay for mammograms outright. When this happens, a local provider performs the mammogram, and is then reimbursed by Planned Parenthood using the Komen grant funds.
During the past five years, these grants have paid for the following education and screenings:
· Breast cancer and breast health education for nearly 160,000 women
· Clinical breast exams for more than 139,000 women
· 4,866 mammograms
· Detection of 177 breast cancers
Overall, Komen Affiliates provide funding for 2,000 community programs that provide screenings, education and financial and social support to women and their families. This funding is based on a thorough assessment of the breast health and support programs available in an Affiliate’s service area.
The limited number of Komen Affiliates that fund Planned Parenthood breast programs do so after this same thorough assessment; the funds are then reviewed twice-yearly to ensure that they are being used only for their intended breast health programs.
We know breast health education and early detection programs, particularly among vulnerable populations, are essential to reduce mortality from breast cancer. Indeed, today’s five-year survival rate is 98 percent for breast cancers caught early, before they’ve spread from the breast.
We hope this information helps to clear up any misinformation that you may have heard.
Thank you, again.
Sincerely,Susan G. Komen for the Cure
Last year, Komen spokesman John Hammarley confirmed 20 of Komen’s 122 affiliates have made donations to Planned Parenthood and, in 2009, those contributions totaled $731,303. He also confirmed Komen affiliates contributed about $3.3 million to the abortion business from 2004-2009.
In a new form letter to one pro-life person who complained about the grants, obtained by LifeNews.com, Komen explains the donations, but says 19 affiliates have donated.
“Thanks very much for writing to share your concern with us. Recent questions have arisen regarding a limited number of Susan G. Komen for the Cure® community grants to Planned Parenthood breast health programs, specifically those designed to provide screening mammograms for vulnerable populations, e.g., low-income and uninsured women,” Komen says. “Currently, 19 Komen for the Cure Affiliates award 19 local grants specifically to Planned Parenthood-sponsored programs in their communities to pay for breast cancer education and breast screenings.”
However, a late March expose’ from Live Action revealed no Planned Parenthood centers nationally provide mammograms.
Live Action released videotaped footage of calls to 30 Planned Parenthood centers nationwide in 27 different states where abortion facility staff were asked whether or not mammograms could be performed on site. Every one of the Planned Parenthood centers admitted they could not do mammograms. Every Planned Parenthood, without exception, tells the women calling that they will have to go elsewhere for a mammogram, and many clinics admit that no Planned Parenthood clinics provide this breast cancer screening procedure.
“We don’t provide those services whatsoever,” admits a staffer at Planned Parenthood of Arizona while a staffer at Planned Parenthood’s Comprehensive Health Center clinic in Overland Park, Kansas tells a caller, “We actually don’t have a, um, mammogram machine, at our clinics.”
In its email to people concerned about the Komen-Planned Parenthood connection, a Komen official admits Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide mammograms for women with its grant money. Komen makes it clear the money is merely funneled through the abortion business to legitimate medical centers that actually perform mammograms.
“When a mammogram is indicated, a patient is often referred to a local program, such as the state’s breast and cervical cancer program. In other cases, the Komen Affiliate’s grant to Planned Parenthood may include funds to pay for mammograms outright. When this happens, a local provider performs the mammogram, and is then reimbursed by Planned Parenthood using the Komen grant funds,” Komen admits.
David Schmidt of Live Action responded to the comments in the new letter from Komen.
“It appears that Komen is getting more inquiries about their affiliation with top US abortion provider Planned Parenthood,” he said. “Notice how Komen plays down their donations to Planned Parenthood by saying a “limited number” of Komen grants have gone to Planned Parenthood.”
He wondered why Komen would give grants to Planned Parenthood rather than legitimate medical centers when the abortion business doesn’t actually help women with mammograms.
“Planned Parenthood doesn’t do mammograms themselves. Why then is Komen giving grants to Planned Parenthood to then in turn pay non-Planned Parenthood health centers to provide mammograms? Why not grant funds directly to the centers performing mammograms?” he asked.
Scmidt also said the grants fail to help the large percentage of women who would never go to the abortion business for legitimate health care.
“Why is Komen’s giving to the largest abortion provider in the United States. Millions of pro-life women do not feel comfortable going to an abortion clinic to get non-abortion services,” he concludes. “Why not give the funds to a non-controversial community health center that all women in the community feel comfortable visiting?”
ACTION: Contact Komen for the Cure to complain about its Planned Parenthood grants at http://ww5.komen.org/Contact.aspx
See the letter below:
Dear Xxxx ,
Thanks very much for writing to share your concern with us. Recent questions have arisen regarding a limited number of Susan G. Komen for the Cure® community grants to Planned Parenthood breast health programs, specifically those designed to provide screening mammograms for vulnerable populations, e.g., low-income and uninsured women.
Currently, 19 Komen for the Cure Affiliates award 19 local grants specifically to Planned Parenthood-sponsored programs in their communities to pay for breast cancer education and breast screenings.
When a mammogram is indicated, a patient is often referred to a local program, such as the state’s breast and cervical cancer program. In other cases, the Komen Affiliate’s grant to Planned Parenthood may include funds to pay for mammograms outright. When this happens, a local provider performs the mammogram, and is then reimbursed by Planned Parenthood using the Komen grant funds.
During the past five years, these grants have paid for the following education and screenings:
· Breast cancer and breast health education for nearly 160,000 women
· Clinical breast exams for more than 139,000 women
· 4,866 mammograms
· Detection of 177 breast cancers
Overall, Komen Affiliates provide funding for 2,000 community programs that provide screenings, education and financial and social support to women and their families. This funding is based on a thorough assessment of the breast health and support programs available in an Affiliate’s service area.
The limited number of Komen Affiliates that fund Planned Parenthood breast programs do so after this same thorough assessment; the funds are then reviewed twice-yearly to ensure that they are being used only for their intended breast health programs.
We know breast health education and early detection programs, particularly among vulnerable populations, are essential to reduce mortality from breast cancer. Indeed, today’s five-year survival rate is 98 percent for breast cancers caught early, before they’ve spread from the breast.
We hope this information helps to clear up any misinformation that you may have heard.
Thank you, again.
Sincerely,Susan G. Komen for the Cure
Friday, April 8, 2011
Saturday, March 5, 2011
What signs do you think need to be posted?
Do you think abortion clinics should have signs on their window stating exactly what they do or is this bill JUST for pregnancy care centers? Think about this bill and what it really is saying.....
From Jill Stanek's post:
On March 2 the New York City Council passed a hostile bill forcing pregnancy care centers to post signage that they do not commit abortions.
This despite the recent release of NYC health dept. statistics revealing that 14.5% of all US abortions are committed there annually, making it the nation’s abortion capital, and that 41% of all of Gotham’s babies are killed by abortion, with the number spiking to 60% of all African-American babies.
A commenter at NRO’s The Corner suggested additional information prcs should include on their signs:
Services available at this center
Free pregnancy testing
Referrals to reduced fee or free pre-natal ultrasounds
Referrals to reduced fee prenatal healthcare
Continued counseling during and after pregnancy
Referrals to housing and educational centers for pregnant teens
Referrals to adoption agencies and adoption counselors (ask to see the notebook with pictures and letters from hopeful prospective adoptive families)
Free maternity clothes available as gifts or loans
Baby layettes of newborn clothing, diapers and other items
Loans and gifts of new and gently used baby equipment
Referrals to post abortion counseling
This center does not provide abortions.
Another commenter suggested signs Planned Parenthood could post:
Back in the day, McDonald’s used to prominently display how many billions of burgers served.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD40 Million Babies Killed
keeping in the McDonald’s vein, the theme of the ads could be:
PLANNED PARENTHOODI’m not lovin’ it
Another commenter had generic suggestions for mills:
Abortions-R-Us
We Buy Your Unwanted AppendagesControlling Population Growth Since 1919Quality of Life over Quantity of Life
What signage ideas do you have for both abortion mills and pregnancy care centers to post?
From Jill Stanek's post:
On March 2 the New York City Council passed a hostile bill forcing pregnancy care centers to post signage that they do not commit abortions.
This despite the recent release of NYC health dept. statistics revealing that 14.5% of all US abortions are committed there annually, making it the nation’s abortion capital, and that 41% of all of Gotham’s babies are killed by abortion, with the number spiking to 60% of all African-American babies.
A commenter at NRO’s The Corner suggested additional information prcs should include on their signs:
Services available at this center
Free pregnancy testing
Referrals to reduced fee or free pre-natal ultrasounds
Referrals to reduced fee prenatal healthcare
Continued counseling during and after pregnancy
Referrals to housing and educational centers for pregnant teens
Referrals to adoption agencies and adoption counselors (ask to see the notebook with pictures and letters from hopeful prospective adoptive families)
Free maternity clothes available as gifts or loans
Baby layettes of newborn clothing, diapers and other items
Loans and gifts of new and gently used baby equipment
Referrals to post abortion counseling
This center does not provide abortions.
Another commenter suggested signs Planned Parenthood could post:
Back in the day, McDonald’s used to prominently display how many billions of burgers served.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD40 Million Babies Killed
keeping in the McDonald’s vein, the theme of the ads could be:
PLANNED PARENTHOODI’m not lovin’ it
Another commenter had generic suggestions for mills:
Abortions-R-Us
We Buy Your Unwanted AppendagesControlling Population Growth Since 1919Quality of Life over Quantity of Life
What signage ideas do you have for both abortion mills and pregnancy care centers to post?
Monday, February 28, 2011
Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing
Below is from the Catholic Herald in the UK
Why Barack Obama has to be seen as an enemy of the Catholic Church
We need to be alert: he is not without influence, even on this side of the pond
By William Oddie on Friday, 25 February 2011
President Barack Obama waves when he came to the graduation ceremony at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana in 2009 (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
Is Barack Obama the most anti-Catholic American president in living memory?
I don’t mean, of course, that he has openly attacked the Church (though it was noted that, at his inauguration as president, contrary to normal practice there was among the clergy invited to attend not one single Catholic, though he made a point of inviting the controversial — because openly and actively homosexual — Episcopalian (i.e. Anglican) bishop, Gene Robinson).
What I mean, though, is that across the whole spectrum of contemporary moral issues, he is passionately committed to a series of views which run directly contrary to those of the Church. All this has caused at least one Catholic bishop (there are probably others) to call him anti-Catholic.
As a Senator, he supported sex education, to be provided by Planned Parenthood, to children of five years old. He consistently voted for abortion, including partial birth abortion. He voted (twice) against Bills prohibiting public funding of abortions; he voted in favour of expanding embryonic stem cell research; he voted against notifying parents of minors who had undergone out-of-state abortions; he voted for a proposal to vote $100,000,000 for the funding of sex-education and contraceptives (including abortifacients) for teenagers; he opposed the “Born Alive Infants Protection Act” on the Senate floor and in 2003 killed the bill in committee. This would have outlawed “live birth abortion,” where labor is induced and an infant is delivered prematurely and then allowed to die.
In the US, Catholics, of course, have noted all this, though their reaction to it has been inconsistent to say the least. In April 2009, the supposedly Catholic University of Notre Dame scandalously conferred on him an honorary degree. Archbishop John C. Nienstedt of St Paul and Minneapolis protested, and demanded that the invitation be withdrawn. His letter, to the president of Notre Dame, Fr John Jenkins (a Catholic priest, if you please) was a real stonker:
“Dear Father Jenkins:
“I have just learned that you, as President of the University of Notre Dame, have invited President Barack Obama to be the graduation commencement speaker at the University’s exercises on May 17, 2009. I was also informed that you will confer on the president an honorary doctor of laws degree, one of the highest honors bestowed by your institution.
“I write to protest this egregious decision on your part. President Obama has been a pro-abortion legislator. He has indicated, especially since he took office, his deliberate disregard of the unborn by lifting the ban on embryonic stem cell research, by promoting the FOCA [Freedom of Choice Act] agenda and by his open support for gay rights throughout this country.
“It is a travesty that the University of Notre Dame, considered by many to be a Catholic University, should give its public support to such an anti-Catholic politician.
“I hope that you are able to reconsider this decision. If not, please do not expect me to support your University in the future.
“Sincerely yours,
“The Most Reverend John C. NienstedtArchbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis”
Obama now has the institution of marriage in his sights. He last year issued a “proclamation” (which you can read on the White House website) on the occasion of the “Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Pride month”, indicating his intention to “give committed gay couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple, and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act….”, and his conviction that “An important chapter in our great, unfinished story is the movement for fairness and equality on behalf of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.”
The Defense of Marriage Act was, ironically, signed into law by another Democratic President, Bill Clinton. Under the law no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered to be a marriage in another state; it defines marriage clearly as a legal union between one man and one woman. It passed both houses of Congress by large majorities: Obama has no chance of getting it repealed. So he is now doing what he can to undermine it. This is where things get complicated for a limey who doesn’t quite understand the convolutions of the American legal system. According to the CNS,
“In a Feb. 23 statement, Attorney General Eric Holder said that although the administration has defended the 1996 law [i.e. the Defense of Marriage Act] in some federal courts, it will not continue to do so in cases pending in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Unlike in the previous cases, said Holder, the 2nd Circuit ‘has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated’.”
This, apparently, is enough to impede the Act’s operation, enough, at least, seriously to alarm the American Catholic Bishops: here’s CNS again:
The U.S. bishops’ Office of General Counsel said the Obama administration’s decision to no longer support the Defense of Marriage Act in legal challenges ahead “represents an abdication” of its “constitutional obligation to ensure that laws of the United States are faithfully executed.”
“Marriage has been understood for millennia and across cultures as the union of one man and one woman,” the office said in a statement issued Feb. 23 after President Barack Obama instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the federal law passed by Congress and signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton.
That’s how things stand. How much effect in practice will Obama’s initiative actually have? Maybe someone who understands American jurisprudence better than I do can explain. At the very least, as the American bishops say, refusal to support the law is “a grave affront to the millions of Americans who both reject unjust discrimination and affirm the unique and inestimable value of marriage as between one man and one woman.”
What next? The fact is that on this side of the pond, as well as in the US, President Obama needs watching. He may have been weakened in the Congress: but a President of the United States always has considerable power, to do evil as well as to do good. He is much more popular in many European countries than he is in the States: and he is not without his influence here. A man who is admired and respected as much as he has been, and in many places still is, can do harm through his words and deeds, even where he has no direct power.
I think he ought to be admired and respected very much less than he is.
Why Barack Obama has to be seen as an enemy of the Catholic Church
We need to be alert: he is not without influence, even on this side of the pond
By William Oddie on Friday, 25 February 2011
President Barack Obama waves when he came to the graduation ceremony at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana in 2009 (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
Is Barack Obama the most anti-Catholic American president in living memory?
I don’t mean, of course, that he has openly attacked the Church (though it was noted that, at his inauguration as president, contrary to normal practice there was among the clergy invited to attend not one single Catholic, though he made a point of inviting the controversial — because openly and actively homosexual — Episcopalian (i.e. Anglican) bishop, Gene Robinson).
What I mean, though, is that across the whole spectrum of contemporary moral issues, he is passionately committed to a series of views which run directly contrary to those of the Church. All this has caused at least one Catholic bishop (there are probably others) to call him anti-Catholic.
As a Senator, he supported sex education, to be provided by Planned Parenthood, to children of five years old. He consistently voted for abortion, including partial birth abortion. He voted (twice) against Bills prohibiting public funding of abortions; he voted in favour of expanding embryonic stem cell research; he voted against notifying parents of minors who had undergone out-of-state abortions; he voted for a proposal to vote $100,000,000 for the funding of sex-education and contraceptives (including abortifacients) for teenagers; he opposed the “Born Alive Infants Protection Act” on the Senate floor and in 2003 killed the bill in committee. This would have outlawed “live birth abortion,” where labor is induced and an infant is delivered prematurely and then allowed to die.
In the US, Catholics, of course, have noted all this, though their reaction to it has been inconsistent to say the least. In April 2009, the supposedly Catholic University of Notre Dame scandalously conferred on him an honorary degree. Archbishop John C. Nienstedt of St Paul and Minneapolis protested, and demanded that the invitation be withdrawn. His letter, to the president of Notre Dame, Fr John Jenkins (a Catholic priest, if you please) was a real stonker:
“Dear Father Jenkins:
“I have just learned that you, as President of the University of Notre Dame, have invited President Barack Obama to be the graduation commencement speaker at the University’s exercises on May 17, 2009. I was also informed that you will confer on the president an honorary doctor of laws degree, one of the highest honors bestowed by your institution.
“I write to protest this egregious decision on your part. President Obama has been a pro-abortion legislator. He has indicated, especially since he took office, his deliberate disregard of the unborn by lifting the ban on embryonic stem cell research, by promoting the FOCA [Freedom of Choice Act] agenda and by his open support for gay rights throughout this country.
“It is a travesty that the University of Notre Dame, considered by many to be a Catholic University, should give its public support to such an anti-Catholic politician.
“I hope that you are able to reconsider this decision. If not, please do not expect me to support your University in the future.
“Sincerely yours,
“The Most Reverend John C. NienstedtArchbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis”
Obama now has the institution of marriage in his sights. He last year issued a “proclamation” (which you can read on the White House website) on the occasion of the “Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Pride month”, indicating his intention to “give committed gay couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple, and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act….”, and his conviction that “An important chapter in our great, unfinished story is the movement for fairness and equality on behalf of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.”
The Defense of Marriage Act was, ironically, signed into law by another Democratic President, Bill Clinton. Under the law no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered to be a marriage in another state; it defines marriage clearly as a legal union between one man and one woman. It passed both houses of Congress by large majorities: Obama has no chance of getting it repealed. So he is now doing what he can to undermine it. This is where things get complicated for a limey who doesn’t quite understand the convolutions of the American legal system. According to the CNS,
“In a Feb. 23 statement, Attorney General Eric Holder said that although the administration has defended the 1996 law [i.e. the Defense of Marriage Act] in some federal courts, it will not continue to do so in cases pending in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Unlike in the previous cases, said Holder, the 2nd Circuit ‘has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated’.”
This, apparently, is enough to impede the Act’s operation, enough, at least, seriously to alarm the American Catholic Bishops: here’s CNS again:
The U.S. bishops’ Office of General Counsel said the Obama administration’s decision to no longer support the Defense of Marriage Act in legal challenges ahead “represents an abdication” of its “constitutional obligation to ensure that laws of the United States are faithfully executed.”
“Marriage has been understood for millennia and across cultures as the union of one man and one woman,” the office said in a statement issued Feb. 23 after President Barack Obama instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the federal law passed by Congress and signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton.
That’s how things stand. How much effect in practice will Obama’s initiative actually have? Maybe someone who understands American jurisprudence better than I do can explain. At the very least, as the American bishops say, refusal to support the law is “a grave affront to the millions of Americans who both reject unjust discrimination and affirm the unique and inestimable value of marriage as between one man and one woman.”
What next? The fact is that on this side of the pond, as well as in the US, President Obama needs watching. He may have been weakened in the Congress: but a President of the United States always has considerable power, to do evil as well as to do good. He is much more popular in many European countries than he is in the States: and he is not without his influence here. A man who is admired and respected as much as he has been, and in many places still is, can do harm through his words and deeds, even where he has no direct power.
I think he ought to be admired and respected very much less than he is.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Billboard protests
Below is an excerpt from Priests for Life....I personally believe until we 'see 'abortion we cannot regret it and deal with it....the wrong billboards are being protested and taken down. Per the article in the WSJ a few weeks back, 41% of all pregnancies in NY city end in abortion and an even higher amount of African American babies.
Please see below....
Dr. Alveda King, director of African-American Outreach for Priests for Life, released the following statement today regarding the billboard in Manhattan that proclaims “The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb.” The billboard was taken down after pressure from local politicians and neighborhood residents.
“It is an outrageous act of censorship that this billboard was taken down,” Dr King said. “This billboard should be posted in every city of the country. And it should provoke outrage in the African-American community—not because it is racist, but because of the truth it reveals; the truth that is being kept from the African-American community.
“Black people in New York and all over the country should be outraged at the numbers of black babies we lose every single day to abortion. An astonishing 60 percent of African-American pregnancies in the five boroughs of New York City end in abortion. That’s unfathomable!
“Some people are angry about the billboard, but that anger is misplaced. We should all be upset and heartbroken that so many African-American women have bought into the lie that abortion will solve their problems. Legal abortion has been with us for 38 years, and the problems facing the African-American community have not gone away.”
Dr. King concluded: “The message of this billboard is totally accurate. The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb! It’s a travesty of justice that it is being taken down.”
Please see below....
Dr. Alveda King, director of African-American Outreach for Priests for Life, released the following statement today regarding the billboard in Manhattan that proclaims “The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb.” The billboard was taken down after pressure from local politicians and neighborhood residents.
“It is an outrageous act of censorship that this billboard was taken down,” Dr King said. “This billboard should be posted in every city of the country. And it should provoke outrage in the African-American community—not because it is racist, but because of the truth it reveals; the truth that is being kept from the African-American community.
“Black people in New York and all over the country should be outraged at the numbers of black babies we lose every single day to abortion. An astonishing 60 percent of African-American pregnancies in the five boroughs of New York City end in abortion. That’s unfathomable!
“Some people are angry about the billboard, but that anger is misplaced. We should all be upset and heartbroken that so many African-American women have bought into the lie that abortion will solve their problems. Legal abortion has been with us for 38 years, and the problems facing the African-American community have not gone away.”
Dr. King concluded: “The message of this billboard is totally accurate. The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb! It’s a travesty of justice that it is being taken down.”
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Pro-abortion leader: We’re losing
Frances Kissling was the founding president of the National Abortion Federation from 1977-1980 and president of Catholics for Choice from 1982-2007.
I’m always interested in what Kissling has to say, because these days she often spends her time taking her own side to task, insightful in that regard. This was no different in Kissling’s op ed piece in the Washington Post on February 18. It was fascinating.
Kissling admits her side is losing. But it seems to me the actions she suggests will only hasten the day when preborn human life is preserved again in America. In other words, I don’t think that her side has any way out. There is no path to success. Excerpts:
In the nearly four decades since the Supreme Court ruled that women have a fundamental right to decide to have an abortion, the opposition to legal abortion has increased dramatically. Opponents use increasingly sophisticated arguments – focusing on advances in fetal medicine, stressing the rights of parents to have a say in their minor children’s health care, linking opposition to abortion with opposition to war and capital punishment, seeking to make abortion not illegal but increasingly unavailable – and have succeeded in swinging public opinion toward their side.
Meanwhile, those of us in the abortion-rights movement have barely changed our approach. We cling to the arguments that led to victory in Roe v. Wade. Abortion is a private decision, we say, and the state has no power over a woman’s body. Those arguments may have worked in the 1970s, but today, they are failing us, and focusing on them only risks all the gains we’ve made.
The “pro-choice” brand has eroded considerably. As recently as 1995 it was the preferred label of 56% of Americans; that dropped to 42% in 2009 and was 45% in 2010, according to Gallup polls. And abortion rights are under attack in Congress…. Meanwhile, 29 governors are solidly anti-abortion, while 15 states passed 39 laws, most of them restrictive, relating to abortion in 2010 alone….
[U]nfortunately we’re not going to regain the ground we have lost. What we must do is stop holding on to a strategy that isn’t working, and one that is making the legal right to abortion more vulnerable than ever before.
We can no longer pretend the fetus is invisible. We can no longer seek to banish the state from our lives, but rather need to engage its power to improve women’s lives. We must end the fiction that an abortion at 26 weeks is no different from one at 6 weeks.
These are not compromises or mere strategic concessions, they are a necessary evolution. The positions we have taken up to now are inadequate for the questions of the 21st century….
The fetus is more visible than ever before, and the abortion-rights movement needs to accept its existence and its value. It may not have a right to life, and its value may not be equal to that of the pregnant woman, but ending the life of a fetus is not a morally insignificant event…. Abortion is not merely a medical matter, and there is an unintended coarseness to claiming that it is.
We need to firmly and clearly reject post-viability abortions except in extreme cases….
Those kinds of regulations are not anti-woman or unduly invasive. They rightly protect all of our interests in women’s health and fetal life….
Finally, the abortion-rights movement needs to change the way it thinks about the state. Right now government is mainly treated as the enemy…. The public is ambivalent about abortion. It wants it to be legal, but will support almost any restriction that indicates society takes the act of abortion seriously. For the choice movement to regain popular support and to maintain a legal right to abortion, it has to work with the state….
We have been demanding that the state mind its own business. That lets government abdicate all responsibility for funding reproductive health care. We need more responsible and compassionate state policies.
But respect for fetal life also requires that men and women take every step possible not to create fetuses they will have to abort….
The moral high ground on abortion is not to be found in asserting an absolute right to choose. Instead, it is to be found in the movement’s historic understanding that when abortion is illegal, it is poor women who suffer….
These shifts I am suggesting are not about compromising or finding common ground with abortion opponents. Compromise assumes that there are two parties prepared to give up something in return for settling an issue. Neither opponents nor advocates of legal abortion are willing to do that. But, for pro-choice advocates, standing our ground will mean losing ground entirely….
If the choice movement does not change, control of policy on abortion will remain in the hands of those who want it criminalized. If we don’t suggest sensible balanced legislation and regulation of abortion, we will be left with far more draconian policies – and, eventually, no choices at all.
Frances Kissling was the founding president of the National Abortion Federation from 1977-1980 and president of Catholics for Choice from 1982-2007.
I’m always interested in what Kissling has to say, because these days she often spends her time taking her own side to task, insightful in that regard. This was no different in Kissling’s op ed piece in the Washington Post on February 18. It was fascinating.
Kissling admits her side is losing. But it seems to me the actions she suggests will only hasten the day when preborn human life is preserved again in America. In other words, I don’t think that her side has any way out. There is no path to success. Excerpts:
In the nearly four decades since the Supreme Court ruled that women have a fundamental right to decide to have an abortion, the opposition to legal abortion has increased dramatically. Opponents use increasingly sophisticated arguments – focusing on advances in fetal medicine, stressing the rights of parents to have a say in their minor children’s health care, linking opposition to abortion with opposition to war and capital punishment, seeking to make abortion not illegal but increasingly unavailable – and have succeeded in swinging public opinion toward their side.
Meanwhile, those of us in the abortion-rights movement have barely changed our approach. We cling to the arguments that led to victory in Roe v. Wade. Abortion is a private decision, we say, and the state has no power over a woman’s body. Those arguments may have worked in the 1970s, but today, they are failing us, and focusing on them only risks all the gains we’ve made.
The “pro-choice” brand has eroded considerably. As recently as 1995 it was the preferred label of 56% of Americans; that dropped to 42% in 2009 and was 45% in 2010, according to Gallup polls. And abortion rights are under attack in Congress…. Meanwhile, 29 governors are solidly anti-abortion, while 15 states passed 39 laws, most of them restrictive, relating to abortion in 2010 alone….
[U]nfortunately we’re not going to regain the ground we have lost. What we must do is stop holding on to a strategy that isn’t working, and one that is making the legal right to abortion more vulnerable than ever before.
We can no longer pretend the fetus is invisible. We can no longer seek to banish the state from our lives, but rather need to engage its power to improve women’s lives. We must end the fiction that an abortion at 26 weeks is no different from one at 6 weeks.
These are not compromises or mere strategic concessions, they are a necessary evolution. The positions we have taken up to now are inadequate for the questions of the 21st century….
The fetus is more visible than ever before, and the abortion-rights movement needs to accept its existence and its value. It may not have a right to life, and its value may not be equal to that of the pregnant woman, but ending the life of a fetus is not a morally insignificant event…. Abortion is not merely a medical matter, and there is an unintended coarseness to claiming that it is.
We need to firmly and clearly reject post-viability abortions except in extreme cases….
Those kinds of regulations are not anti-woman or unduly invasive. They rightly protect all of our interests in women’s health and fetal life….
Finally, the abortion-rights movement needs to change the way it thinks about the state. Right now government is mainly treated as the enemy…. The public is ambivalent about abortion. It wants it to be legal, but will support almost any restriction that indicates society takes the act of abortion seriously. For the choice movement to regain popular support and to maintain a legal right to abortion, it has to work with the state….
We have been demanding that the state mind its own business. That lets government abdicate all responsibility for funding reproductive health care. We need more responsible and compassionate state policies.
But respect for fetal life also requires that men and women take every step possible not to create fetuses they will have to abort….
The moral high ground on abortion is not to be found in asserting an absolute right to choose. Instead, it is to be found in the movement’s historic understanding that when abortion is illegal, it is poor women who suffer….
These shifts I am suggesting are not about compromising or finding common ground with abortion opponents. Compromise assumes that there are two parties prepared to give up something in return for settling an issue. Neither opponents nor advocates of legal abortion are willing to do that. But, for pro-choice advocates, standing our ground will mean losing ground entirely….
If the choice movement does not change, control of policy on abortion will remain in the hands of those who want it criminalized. If we don’t suggest sensible balanced legislation and regulation of abortion, we will be left with far more draconian policies – and, eventually, no choices at all.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Here we go again
Well, at the prompting of a few good friends to start blogging again...here I am, Lord....it is I Lord, you know the one who is a great sinner and hears you calling in the night. I promise myself to be more consistent!
I keep thinking what could I possibly say that people might want to hear....well, as John, says, I always have a lot to say and especially about life. I used to be on the other side of the fence, much like Abby Johnson. from Planned Parenthood...believed women should have their rights and be able to do anything with their bodies that they want...it is their right. What I was ignoring in all of that thinking was that God is the one who gives, and takes, life. I thought that way before I knew God...before I realized He made me in the image and likeness of himself....not to destroy life but to live the life He gave me and to live it fully in His name. I get that now and my life has forever changed. How about yours?
I keep thinking what could I possibly say that people might want to hear....well, as John, says, I always have a lot to say and especially about life. I used to be on the other side of the fence, much like Abby Johnson. from Planned Parenthood...believed women should have their rights and be able to do anything with their bodies that they want...it is their right. What I was ignoring in all of that thinking was that God is the one who gives, and takes, life. I thought that way before I knew God...before I realized He made me in the image and likeness of himself....not to destroy life but to live the life He gave me and to live it fully in His name. I get that now and my life has forever changed. How about yours?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)