What unspoken message does a "Wrongful Birth" lawsuit send?

A Portland OR couple sued their obstetrician for failing to diagnose their now four year old daughter with Trisomy 21. They were just awarded $3million.

The Levys were awarded $2.9 million dollars to pay for the extra care that Kalanit will need. According to experts, Kalanit is not expected to be able to live on her own.
David K. Miller, the Levys’ attorney, has expressed that this lawsuit was not about whether or not the pregnancy would have been aborted but about the Levys’ love for Kalanit. In a statement to KATU Channel 2 in Portland, Miller explains, “These are parents who love this little girl very, very much. Their mission since the beginning was to provide for her and that’s what this is all about

”Michael Coren host of "The Michael Coren Show" asked me a provocative question in an interview last fall, "When you tuck your daughter in at night, does the fact that there are many out there who want to kill your daughter haunt you?"

I replied, "Although I don't come across these people in everyday life, I read about them in the news, and it motivates me every single day for the past six years to write about the joy and beauty of my daughter with Down syndrome to overcome their ignorance. I want to create a better world for Christina, where she is welcomed, included, and valued for her unique contributions to society. "
But the Levy's aren't ignorant, they have had four years raising their daughter. It cuts me to the quick when parents seek damages for the 'wrongful life' of their own child. I think ahead to when she can read, and wonder if she will be surfing the net one day and come across her own name in an article. What will go through her mind? How will the Levy's explain this to her?

No matter what they say, its bound to come across as 'we regretted your birth and wanted the chance to abort you."

I know several people who were told too late in life that they were adopted, and the shock they experienced, but at least they had grown up with parents who chose them. This little girl (I am not using her name in hope that she'll never find this article) does not have that consolation. It makes me angry for her, and at the parents who did not love her enough to either appreciate her unique gifts or give her up for adoption. There are over 200 parents in America waiting to adopt children with Down syndrome, they don't have to raise her if they do not love her.
The attorney's claim that the child will never be able to live alone and that the huge amount of damages ($2.9 million) are needed to help her because she cannot live on her own doesn't convince me. First of all, people with Down syndrome are living fuller, more independent lives than ever before, and overcoming the cognitive difficulties associated with Down syndrome is the subject of several promising clinical studies around the world(Acosta, Mobley). By the time this young lady is old enough to live alone she may able to take medication which improves her thinking and memory to the point where she can function independently. If she can't there are many group homes available to support her in a fulfilled, happy lifestyle.

What further angers me is, that, the Levy's are promulgating the false notion that one needs to be wealthy to raise a child with Down syndrome. I have encountered that mindset in several articles, and I know it is not true. Certainly therapy and help can be purchased, but I have found that, with minimal effort, a plethora of free or insurance-covered goods and services can be obtained, behavioral training, additional therapy, summer camps, respite care, grants for things such as backyard fencing, and even an Ipad. I have never wanted for help in supporting my daughter's development.

Lastly the Levy's are sending a message to obstetricians in this nation by their lawsuit; if you have any doubts about whether an unborn baby has Down syndrome, you had better err on the side of caution, diagnose Down syndrome, and advise the couple to terminate, or face career-wrecking malpractice lawsuits and insurance premiums. There is a dearth of medical students willing to enter obstetrics for this reason, and this will make it worse.

Or, perhaps the new maternal blood tests like MaterniT21 which promise nearly 100% accuracy in diagnosing Trisomy 21 in early pregnancy, will make such lawsuits irrelevant, as they will effective eliminate the nearly the entire population of people with Down syndrome.

Read the article about the Levy's wrongful birth lawsuit here.

Discrimination begins in the womb

My friend Gerry Nadal is confounded.

The man isn't confused often; he's a PhD in Microbiology, and is one of those rare people who makes full use of both hemispheres of his brain, he's as eloquent and insightful about historical perspective as he is brilliant about microbiology. So when Gerry is perplexed, its for a darn good reason. He, like me is absolutely flummoxed that the NAACP is opposed to the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011, Why would the NAACP among other so-called civil rights organizations, oppose a bill which would make it illegal to discriminate against unborn babies on the basis of sex or race?


He elaborates here;



"The Bill in question will make it illegal to target babies for abortion based on gender or race, and admittedly raises a problem for Planned Parenthood. Under the Bill, abortionists can be imprisoned for not determining if the race or gender of the baby was a determinative factor in aborting.

In practical terms, it’s doubtful that at the individual level this would affect many African American abortions, as the mothers aren’t aborting because of their child’s race. It does, however, have implications at the macro-level when an organization such as Planned Parenthood operates 78% of their centers in inner-city neighborhoods.

That said, why would any civil rights organization (and there are 45 others opposed to this Bill, including the National Council of Jewish Women) object to the Bill’s language or intent? Supposedly, the opposition is to the names of the two great leaders on the Bill, and therein resides a hornets nest of gender and racial politics, of political correctness. So, let’s lance the boil."

So, its the name is it? Those organizations can't state their true objective, undying allegiance to abortion as a way of life, so they have to find some detail to focus upon. But wait, what about this bill is incongruous to the legacy of tolerance and justice for which we honor Susan B Anthony(click here to see her pro-life views) and Frederick Douglass?



“The truth of the matter is that Douglas and Anthony belong to all of us, including those of us who fight in the modern abolitionist movement.”

As the mother of a child from another group targeted for abortion; those with Down syndrome, I rejoiced when I heard of this legislation. I thought, ‘if we can protect unborn babies from racial and sexual discrimination, maybe, just maybe we can protect them from genetic discrimination.’

I love all the races and both genders which God created. I love the genetic diversity displayed in the almond eyes of my daughter, no less a gift from His Hand than any other child.

We need to see that a love for diversity cannot be artificially begun at birth, it must begins when life begins, at fertilization!

Read Dr Nadal's riveting post on his blog Coming Home.

Fr Donat Gionet removed for anti-gay, anti-abortion sermons - Canada - CBC News

Report from the Canadian press about Fr Gionet including quotes from his now infamous homily which was given in several locations around his parish coinciding with the local gay parade. The major of the town, who also sits on the parish council is gay.

"After 51 years as a priest, Gionet has been barred from saying mass and administering the sacraments in the Bathurst diocese.
Gionet said Wednesday that people who are gay are a threat to the Catholic Church.
"We have to try to fight [homosexuality], destroy it, or do our best to invite people to change their life," Gionet told CBC.
"And that's something which is from my duty as a priest. I have to teach the truth to the people. I have to tell them how they should live to be with the church because if you're gay you're not with the church."
Representatives from Gionet's diocese said they have heard mixed reactions from the priest's congregation, with some supporting his message but others uncomfortable with his sermons."

Of course there are mixed reactions, no one wants to hear their activities are sinful, but that is the duty of the priest! To call the sinners home to repentance and to preach the truth in season and out of season. God has blessed his faithfulness with a larger audience than he ever hoped to reach in his quiet parish. Stories about the priest, who is a modern day St Jean Marie VIanney, continue to multiply.

I was interviewed by Rene Landry of Radio Canada about Fr Gionet and will post a link to the broadcast here.





Courageous Priest weighs in on the issue here quoting a letter written by Fr Gionet to the press explaining his homily but not backing down one iota.

“I said:‘Today,it is we Catholics who are destroying our Catholic Church. We need only look at the number of abortions among Catholics,look at the homosexuals,and ourselves.’ (That’s when I pointed at my chest –through that action I wanted to say,we the priests) and I continued saying:We are destroying our Church ourselves. And that’s when I said that those were the words expressed by Pope John Paul II. At that point,in the St-Léolin church only,I added: ‘We can add to that the practice of watching gay parades,we are encouraging this evil’ …What would you think of someone who seeing what was happening on (Sept.) 11,2001,the crumbling of the towers,had begun clapping? We must not encourage evil,whatever form it takes.”

Fr Gionet sees homosexuals with the compassionate eyes of Christ, he sees their grave sins, and invites them home to confess and live a life in the grace of God. We tend to forget that after Christ saved the woman caught in adultery from judgement and stoning, He told her "go and sin no more". Fr Gionet is like Christ, not wishing violence against gays but warning them that if they persist in mortal sin, they are condemning themselves to hell.
Such pure love is seldom understood by the world, but one would expect his bishop to understand.

Aborted baby cells used to make Pepsi, Nestle, andKraft products tastier

                                                                                 

Biotech company using aborted fetal cell lines to test food flavor enhancers

 Children of God for Life is calling for a public boycott of major food companies partnering with Senomyx, a biotech company that produces artificial flavor enhancers using aborted fetal cell lines to test their products.

In 2010, the pro-life organization wrote to Senomyx CEO Kent Snyder, pointing out that moral options for testing their food additives could and should be used.  But when Senomyx ignored their letter, they wrote to the companies Senomyx listed on their website as "collaborators" warning them of public backlash and threatened boycott.  Food giants Pepsico, Kraft Foods, Campbell Soup, Solae and Nestlé are the primary targets of the boycott.

Senomyx website states: “The company's key flavor programs focus on the discovery and development of savory, sweet and salt flavor ingredients that are intended to allow for the reduction of MSG, sugar and salt in food and beverage products....Using isolated human taste receptors, we created proprietary taste receptor-based assay systems that provide a biochemical or electronic readout when a flavor ingredient interacts with the receptor.” 

Their collaborators provide Senomyx research and development funding plus royalties on sales of products using their flavor ingredients.

“What they don’t tell the public is that they are using HEK 293 – human embryonic kidney cells taken from an electively aborted baby to produce those receptors”, stated Debi Vinnedge, Executive Director for Children of God for Life, a pro-life watch dog group that has monitored the use of aborted fetal material in medical and consumer products for years.

“They could have easily chosen animal, insect, or other morally obtained human cells expressing the G protein for taste receptors”, she added.

In writing to their collaborators, it took three letters before Nestlé finally admitted the truth about their relationship with Senomyx, noting the cell line was “well established in scientific research".

Both Pepsico and Campbell Soup also responded.

Shockingly, Pepsico wrote: “We hope you are reassured to learn that our collaboration with Senomyx is strictly limited to creating lower-calorie, great-tasting beverages for consumers. This will help us achieve our commitment to reduce added sugar per serving by 25% in key brands in key markets over the next decade and ultimately help people live healthier lives.” 

Campbell Soup was more sensitive in their response: “Every effort is made to use the finest ingredients and develop the greatest selection of products, all at a great value. With this in mind, it must be said that the trust we have cultivated and developed over the years with our consumers is not worth compromising to cut costs or increase profit margins."

While Campbell didn’t state they would change their methods, their response, gave Vinnedge hope.

“If enough people voice their outrage and intent to boycott these consumer products, it may convince Senomyx to change their methods”, she noted. “Otherwise, we will be buying Coca-Cola, Lipton soups and Hershey products!”

See www.cogforlife.org/senomyxalert.htm





UPDATE!!! March 29, 2011 11:45AM
Within hours of our press release, Children of God for Life received notice from Campbell Soup that they have severed their ties with Senomyx.

Stated Juli Mandel Sloves, Senior Manager of Nutrition & Wellness Communications at Campbell Soup Company, "We are no longer in partnership with Senomyx. This fact was discussed during the Senomyx conference call with its investors earlier this month."

If you choose to write to Campbell Soup, please thank them for their decision.Here is the comment form. 
 Mmmm good!

Should Geraldine Ferraro be given a Catholic funeral?

My friend Dr Gerry Nadal has a thought provoking piece over at his blog Coming Home which may make me change my mind on whether Geraldine Ferraro deserves a Catholic funeral. Its about mercy, not covering up her public sin of being unabashedly pro-abortion.

Something is radically wrong here. If the people seem indifferent to abortion, might they be mirroring their bishops? The point of public censure of such politicians is at once medicinal for the politician, and catechetical for the laity. If the Kennedy’s and Ferraro’s of our time do not merit public censure and prohibition of Eucharistic reception in life, then it seems pointless and even cruel to suddenly get serious about their souls in death.

This funeral discussion has more to do with the cowardice of our bishops than we may like to admit. Catholic politicians use bishops to lend them support, maybe not verbally, but they rush to St Patrick's Day parades to file past St Patrick's Cathedral wearing shamrocks waving and smiling. What does that tell the Catholic faithful who are often too lazy to look at any programming other than ESPN and the parade? Images speak louder than words to a public which is only semi-engaged in their spiritual lives. They lead to this kind of thought,
"These guys are just one of us. They're OK to vote for. Why not, our bishops seem to support them? "

Why don't the bishops fight for their salvation before they die, by telling them  in plain language the true state of their souls and arguing with them about their sins? Its not condemnation, its an act of mercy. Its a spiritual act of mercy to admonish the sinner.
St Maria Gorretti cared more for Alessandro's soul than for her own life, when he was threatening to defile her, she didn't beg for her life, she told him, "No, no, no, its a sin, you'll go to hell!" Maria cared more for Alessandro's soul than he did. It should be the same for the bishops, They should be willing to become unpopular for the sake of Ted Kennedy's or Geraldine Ferraro's eternal destiny. This is hardly martyrdom.
They may be doing it privately, but if a sin is public, it requires a public denunciation for the sake of the scandal it causes, for the bad catechesis as Gerry Nadal says.

Remember Cardinal O'Connor? Here is a tribute to him on EWTN's website.

Cardinal O'Connor battled with prominent Catholic abortion rights supporters, most notably with former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo and Geraldine Ferraro, the 1984 Democratic vice presidential nominee. Cardinal O'Connor refused to accept their position, writing in 1990 that Catholics who opposed the Church's teachings on abortion by "advocating legislation supporting abortion, or by making public funds available for abortion ... must be warned that they are at a risk of excommunication. If such actions persist, bishops may consider excommunication the only option." 

 He gave pro-abortion politicians a run for their money, just ask Mario Cuomo who  coined the phrase, "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I don't want to inflict my beliefs on others". The good Cardinal never let him or Geraldine Ferraro away with that kind of doublespeak, and they both treated him shamefully. They imposed excommunication on themselves by supporting abortion publicly and never publicly apologized. Cardinal O'Connor cared for their souls more than they did and did them the favor of pointing that out to them, despite their rude responses. That is why, at his funeral, President and Mrs Clinton were forced to stand for a ten minute ovation when his courageous stand on life issues was lauded. It was a wonderful teaching moment, I was never prouder to be a Catholic in New York than that moment.

Maybe we should support a Catholic funeral for Geraldine Ferraro because of how desperately she needs our prayers. I think the reason we balk at Catholic funerals is because they become canonizations, like Teddy Kennedy's in Boston. We know these politicians thumbed their noses at Catholic moral teaching and no one corrected them publicly from the chancery. Then, their friends, fellow crooked politicians, knowing the cameras are rolling, use the occasion to extol those virtues which happen to fall within Catholic teaching, like advocating for the poor, while ignoring their pro-death stand on abortion. All of this happens while the Cardinal is silent, within the Holy Mass. It's intolerable!
Wouldn't it be refreshing to pro-lifers and instructive to lukewarm Catholics who see Ferraro's funeral in the news to hear a bishop say, "we know that if she did not repent of voting for the death of millions of unborn children, then she is in hell, so let us pray for God's mercy on her immortal soul."
Now that's Catholicism, justice and mercy!

First ever pro-active pro-life victory in CT!

I was saddened but not shocked to read yesterday, that CT has one of the five highest abortion rates in the nation. Such a tragic legacy for what was, a half century ago, considered a fortress of moral values due to the high density of our Catholic population. Legislators used to be afraid of passing immoral legislation up here, but obviously  with gay marriage and high abortion rates, they have won the battle.  But not the war.
 We are one of the few states with virtually no restrictions on abortion; no informed consent, no waiting period, and no parental notification, but that is about to be challenged, according to Peter Wolfgang a the Family Institute of CT: Instead of waiting for more abhorrent legislation to oppose, he is on the offensive, demanding parental notification. We have the evidence in a dozen Planned Parenthood sting operations from Lila Rose at Live Action, (see video here) that sexual slaves are being abused, then their babies are aborted by PP and the underage women are being sent back to the abusive man. The time for outrage, leading to action is NOW!

FIC’s Biggest-Ever Pro-Active Victory! The pro-life movement’s #1 legislative goal in Connecticut was accomplished earlier this month. And it happened because of the Family Institute of Connecticut. The Program Review and Investigations Committee has agreed to a study about teen health. The scope of the study will include parental notification for minor girls seeking to obtain an abortion. There will be a public hearing on the study this summer. In other words: We secured a public hearing on parental notification! Our accomplishment is such a delicate matter at the state Capitol that it is only now, two weeks later, that we can even tell you about it. We cannot provide our usual behind-the-scenes report, but we do wish to acknowledge our gratitude toward those legislators who attended FIC’s February 3rd legislative breakfast. Connecticut is one of only a handful of states that does not have a parental notification law. Though there was an informational hearing on it a few years ago, getting a public hearing on parental notification has been the #1 legislative goal of Connecticut pro-lifers. Make no mistake: This hearing does not end the roughly 15,000 abortions a year occurring in Connecticut. Our ultimate goal is a state where every unborn child is protected in law and welcomed in life. But even those who do not share that goal will agree with us that it is a travesty that a minor girl can obtain an abortion without notifying her parents. Correcting that travesty is a first step toward a more humane Connecticut. By taking this step, FIC has secured the first public hearing on abortion in Connecticut in over twenty years. We are grateful to our allies on Program Review for what they have accomplished. We are also grateful to those legislators who do not yet share our pro-life convictions but voted for this study in good faith and with an open mind. We pledge to work with those on both sides of the abortion issue on our shared goal of protecting the health of Connecticut’s minor girls.

Safe Legal and Rare

The Catholic League's Bill Donohue shows how to reduce abortions; help women make better choices.
We know abortion is the choice of a desperate woman, who is acting by emotion without thought.
IF the so-called pro-choice side cared about women, they would support initiatives like the 3 day waiting period just signed into law in South Dakota. But they put profit over people.
When women know they really have choices other than abortion, when they see what their baby looks like and how they will be affected by abortion, THEY CHOOSE LIFE!

For the past few years, the pro-abortion community has inexplicably said they support "abortion reduction" efforts (it is not clear why they would want to reduce the rates of a procedure they say is non-lethal). In any event, they should now be supporting what is going on in South Dakota (somehow, we believe they will side with Planned Parenthood, which is filing suit against the state).

 

Yesterday, the governor signed a law in South Dakota to require women who want an abortion to first learn what assistance is available to them in the event they decide to keep their babies; a waiting period of three days after the initial visit with an abortionist was also approved. In a New York Times article today, it notes that this is happening in a state "despite an abortion rate that is among the lowest in the nation." Which made me wonder: Which states have the highest, and the lowest, rates of abortion? Also, what accounts for the disparity? That is why I repaired to the data on these subjects collected by the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood.

 

The states with the five highest rates of abortion (1-5) are: New York, New Jersey, Nevada, Delaware and Connecticut. Those with the five lowest rates (46-50) are: North Dakota, Nebraska, Kentucky, Utah and South Dakota. None of the five with the highest rates has a waiting period, and none offer written material on the procedure, including fetal development throughout pregnancy. All of those with the five lowest rates require a 24-hour waiting period (now 72 in South Dakota), and all offer written material, including information on fetal development through term. Moreover, Utah and South Dakota also offer information on the ability of the baby to experience pain when he or she is being killed.

 

If the high abortion states are to mimic success, they will have to abandon their policy of keeping women ignorant. If these liberal states are to be truly pro-choice, they will have to start allowing women to make real choices. Their resistance to informed consent must end.

Black genocide poster in Soho drawing fire

---

ABORTION = BLACK GENOCIDE 

A pro-life group, Life Always, has displayed a huge billboard in the SoHo section of New York City that shows a picture of a young black girl with the inscription, "The most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb." It has created a firestorm in New York City.

 

The organization responsible for the billboard has the strong backing of prominent African Americans; they chose to display their message during Black History Month. Rev. Stephen Broden, an African American who heads Life Always, says he wants to protest abortion as black genocide.

 

Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented on the critics of the billboard today:

 

Life Always says it wants to raise public awareness of Planned Parenthood's war on black people. Good for them.Margaret Sanger, who founded the organization, made no secret of her racist agenda to wipe out the "weeds" in the African American community. To this day, a disproportionate number of Planned Parenthood's abortion clinics are located in minority neighborhoods, their largest cheerleaders being affluent white liberals who perversely boast of championing the cause of the black poor.

 

Nationally, blacks, who make up 13 percent of the population, account for over one-third of all the abortions. In New York City, where over four out of ten children are killed before birth, the rate of abortion among black women is 60 percent. But killing six in ten black babies isn't enough to satisfy some affluent white liberals—they want more.

 

New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn does not find black genocide offensive—she finds the billboard offensive. Worse is Bill de Blasio, who in the name of being New York's Public Advocate, is advocating that the billboard be taken down. He says, "The billboard simply doesn't belong in our city. The ad violates the values of New Yorkers." The values he is so proud of include the devaluing of innocent human life, making New York City the abortion capital of the nation.

 

Jeff Field
Director of Communications
The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

We're getting ready for the March for Life; are you?

Attention Christina Velasquez fans; she is about to make her debut on EWTN this Monday January 24 between 11 and 11:30 EST. We will be representing KIDS Keep Infants with Down Syndrome. a group Eileen Haupt and I began three years ago to call attention to the fact that babies with Down syndrome are targeted by what future saint, and the Father of Modern Genetics, 

 Dr Jerome Lejeune called "chromosomal racism". They are aborted at a rate of 90% when they are discovered by pre-natal diagnosis.
Until now this has been done largely by amnio, however, a new blood test threatens to dramatically increase the number of our lovely and special children aborted. This non-invasive blood test is being touted in the media as a life-saver, yet whose lives are worth saving and whose are not?

We at KIDS say ALL life is precious! 

Come join us for our EWTN interview behind the speakers platform at the March for Life, hold up a sign to say that you are for ALL KIDS. 

God made them as they are and finds them precious in His sight. 

Dr Jerome Lejeune's daughter to speak on her father

For those of you who love someone with Trisomy 21 (also known as Down syndrome), and are alarmed by the 90% abortion rate of these precious children, here is a not to be missed pro-life event;
Jérôme Lejeune: A True Scientist


The life and work of the great geneticist and doctor through the eyes of his daughter, Clara LEJEUNE-GAYMARD
Saturday, January 15, 2011 3:15 PM
CONFERENCE ROOM of the MANHATTAN CENTER
311 West 34th Street at 8th Avenue
New York, NY 10001
A unique, eye-witness presentation by Dr. Lejeune’s daughter telling how he lived the unity between his faith and his passion for science, what it meant for him to witness his faith in a challenging, sometimes hostile, environment, and how his friendship with Pope John Paul II was born.

Feast of the Holy Innocents

This feast day has always touched me with the power of its relevance for us today. So many innocents are slaughtered in our abortion mills, by modern day Herods. But God's power will save them IF we are obedient to His call, as St Joseph was.
Read the rest at my guest post over at The Integrated Catholic Life.

Three Ex-Catholics on "The View" criticized Bishop Olmstead

DELIRIUM OVERCOMES "THE VIEW" GIRLS  

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on today's episode of "The View" which featured a discussion about the Catholic Church and abortion:

 

It is an ugly site: grown women sitting around bashing a religion that none belong to. Though at one time three did: Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg and Elisabeth Hasselbeck are all ex-Catholics. They went bonkers today—the crosstalk makes them look downright delirious—ripping away about the Catholic Church because a nun was excommunicated for allowing an abortion at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix. What they didn't say was that the nun gave her formal consent to the killing of an innocent child. More important, since none of the panelists are Catholic, it is none of their business anyway.

 

The fact is (though one would never know it by watching this extended diatribe) the parent organization to this hospital, Catholic Healthcare West, has a long record of flagrantly violating the teachings of the Catholic Church. In other words, the San Francisco-based organization is a serial offender.

 

Had the non-Catholics focused only on this issue, that would be one thing. But, no, they trotted out miscreant priests, painted the Catholic Church as anti-women, etc. That's what happens when the bigotry is deeply embedded—one issue is enough to set off an explosion.

 

Behar is no stranger to Catholic bashing, so it was expected she would join in while the others piled on. Hasselbeck poses as a conservative, but her pathological hatred of Catholicism reveals who she really is. Sherri Shepherd, who usually keeps her mouth shut during these harangues, unwisely spoke up. As for Whoopi, who reportedly has had at least a half-dozen abortions—beginning at age 14 [click here]—it is no wonder she looked the most delirious.

 

Contact producer Bill Geddie: bill.geddie@abc.com

Ireland under fire from EU for pro-life constitution

Its a completely specious argument that these women are making; that the fact that Ireland protects unborn babies from slaughter adversely affected their health. They had to travel to the UK to obtain abortions, and claimed that this threatened their health. It doesn't matter how flimsy the excuse, the European Court of Human Rights may use this to strike down Ireland's constitutional ban on abortion as a "violation of human rights". Imagine, protecting unborn children violates human rights! This is so illogical, but the point of view of the courts has changed, from protecting human life to insuring that sinners have an easy time disposing of the results of their sin, under the guise of 'women's health'. This is an effort to circumvent the will of Irish people who voted to protect the unborn in a nationwide referendum in 1983.

The ABC case was orchestrated by the Irish Family Planning Association, a leading abortion lobbyist group, in an effort to overturn Ireland’s pro-life laws, which were put in place by a 1983 referendum. The abortion lobby, Buckley said, has turned to the unelected courts, and finally a European court, “because it has failed to persuade the people of Ireland to legalize abortion.”

Buckley warned that should the ECHR rule against the Irish law, it would be a step towards establishing an internationally recognized “human right” to abortion.

Once this is established, it will be very difficult  to protect babies anywhere.
Read the entire story at Life Site News.

Words and meaning, why eliminating the R word is not enough for me

Read my column in Renew America on why forbidding the words mentally retarded is not going to help raise respect for those with Down syndrome sufficiently to change anything.

Eliminating the word 'retarded' is not enough

The battle against using the so-called "R-word" has occupied my friends. in the Down syndrome advocacy community. I could never get fully engaged, because of the elephant in the room: the 90% abortion rate of our children. Read more at Renew America.

The ladies leave the left

According to Concerned Women for America, there will be BIG changes in the way women vote. I think that women are sensing that Obama, who promised he would take care of us, is failing miserably, and in fact plotting to remove our supports, like the mortgage and child tax credit. Not to mention our health care.
So women are moving to the right. Finally realizing who is pro-family after all.

By Penny Nance, Chief Executive Officer
Concerned Women for America

On November 2, we could witness a tectonic shift in the
voting patters of American women -- a shift that could
reshape the political landscape for the rest of this decade.

But everything still depends on what happens in these
final days leading up to Election Day.

Here's the evidence...

According to a Pew Research poll, female likely voters are
now more likely to vote for a Republican than a Democrat --
49 to 43 percent. Why is this significant?

Because this is a huge shift from just two years ago when
female voters preferred Barack Obama by 13 points -- 56 to
43 percent. In addition, one has to go back more than two
decades (1988) to find the last national election cycle
in which female voters favored Republicans over Democrats.
And the "gender gap" has typically been 10 points or more.

A double-digit swing in the so-called "gender gap" in just
two years -- and a historic move that hasn't been seen in
22 years -- is a political tectonic shift.

But in the face of this shift, liberal feminists are on the
attack. They are demeaning conservative women leaders in
an effort to paint you and me as untrustworthy radicals.

Their goal? Stereotype conservative women as a threat and
sway votes away from conservative candidates!

The most vicious attach on conservatives is the horrible documentary "The Assassination of Dr George Tiller" a liberal attempt by Rachel Maddow to smear all pro-lifers with Tillers blood. His murder was the act of a disturbed man, Scott Roeder, who acted alone. But thanks to creative editing and failure to tell the facts, and staged photos, Maddow lionizes the man who was known for performing  horrendous abortions on babies who could live on their own. and the deaths of women like the 19 with Down syndrome, Christin Gilbert.(see photo at right) Her mother took her to Tiller's mill for a late term abortion and she died a horrible death of sepsis. Tiller's staff convinced her mother NOT to take her to the hospital till it was too late. After all, Tiller killed many a baby with Down syndrome, why should he care if a young woman like Christin died? Such is the mentality of the man who was canonized in this propaganda piece.

Not only does Maddow want to scare Democrats and moderates away from conservatives, but she is setting up a  lawsuit against all pro-lifers by alleging that those who prayed outside the mill, by their very activism, were encouraging Roeder to kill Tiller. She is even trying to bring down Bill O'Reilly who did several shows on Tiller. Way to improve your show's ratings, Maddow!
Liberals don't have the truth on their side, so they resort to smear tactics and since so much of the media is still on their side, the lies are repeated over and over till they are accepted as truth.
 Not as long as we have the internet, Maddow, we won't let your lies stand.
Women are educating themselves and not allowing feminazis like you to tell us what we think!
Read Jill Stanek's post on this propaganda piece.

Vote YES on Colorado Prop 62!

Eugencist Peter Singer at abortion debate at Princeton

The headline panel featured two heavyweight Australian philosophers – Singer, a bioethics professor at Princeton, and John Finnis, a professor emeritus of philosophy in the University of Oxford.  The two debated the “Moral Status of the Fetus."

Singer defended his support for infanticide, stating that self-awareness confers moral status, and not species membership.  Abortion is the killing of a human being, but is not immoral because the child does not meet the self-awareness test, said Singer. 

In his utilitarian view, Singer believes that there can even be a moral duty to kill humans lacking self-awareness, including the disabled, which he has been criticized for not following in the case of his mother.

Singer's stance is absolutely terrifying, considering that he is considered an intellectual,  mainstream 'ethicist'.
The fact that "Catholics for Choice"leader Frances Kissling is a 'visiting ethics scholar'at University of Pennsylvania when she is niether ethical nor a scholar is also disturbing.
These monsters will be the ones who determine who lives or dies in this nation, if Obamacare is not overturned. These are the people whom Obama considers his peers and advisors.
VOTE pro-life. 
Read the entire article here. 

Counter the lie that Obamacare doesn't fund abortion

 from PRI;            


                      Does Obamacare Fund Abortion?

Let Us Count the Ways.

by Steven W. Mosher

When Obamacare was signed into law in March, the President assured Americans that it does not, in any way, shape, or form, fund elective abortions. He even signed an executive order to this effect. The only problem with Obama's claims, which are being repeated by politicians like Harry Reid and partisan groups like Democrats for Life of America, is that they are not true.

The only real abortion restriction in Obamacare was in fact removed before the President signed the bill into law. This was the so-called “Stupak-Pitts Amendment”, named after Democrat Bart Stupak and Republican Joe Pitts, that was inserted into the House version of the bill. This amendment applied the Hyde Amendment abortion restrictions, which forbids certain Health and Human Services (HHS) funds from being used to pay for abortions, to Obamacare.

The Stupak-Pitts Amendment was necessary because the original bill did not include any blanket restriction on using taxpayer funds for abortion. Neither did the original Hyde Amendment suffice (despite what Harry Reid has claimed), since Obamacare creates lots of new pathways for sending money directly to various health care projects, bypassing HHS and the Hyde Amendment restrictions altogether. (We will talk about these in a minute.)

The problem was that the Senate version of the bill contained no abortion restrictions. But instead of putting pressure on the Senate Democrats to add the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to their version of the bill, the Obama administration chose instead to place enormous pressure on the House to take this language out of their bill. In the end, nearly all the House Democrats, including the small “pro-life” contingent, did as they were told. As a result, there are no restrictions against abortion in the bill itself.

In exchange, the President with great fanfare signed an executive order that supposedly amends the health care legislation to preclude abortion funding. The problem is that it does no such thing, because it can't: An executive order is not law and cannot amend legislation. The courts will throw out the President's piece of paper as soon as it is challenged. There is no way that Obama, who is a Harvard-trained lawyer, doesn't know this. His political allies certainly do. The head ofPlanned Parenthood, an organization that stands to make a lot of money off Obamacare, dismissed the executive order as nothing more than a “symbolic gesture.”

So what is all this presidential posturing really about? Was it merely an effort to provide some political cover for “pro-life” Democrats who voted for Obamacare despite its abortion funding? If so, it hasn't worked, to judge from the polls, which currently show most of them going down to defeat by large margins on November 2nd.

Most voters understand that, since there is no blanket restriction on abortion funding in the health care legislation, they will wind up paying for abortions, at least in some circumstances. Let me give you three of the Obamacare provisions that will, in my opinion, inevitably lead to abortion funding:

• Money for so-called “Community Health Centers”: Many of these Community Health Centers will be run by Planned Parenthood and other groups that see abortion as an essential service and, without abortion-restricting language in the bill, money that goes to these centers will be used to pay for abortions.
• Money for federal insurance plans: Obamacare will provide two or more state-sponsored insurance plans. According to the bill, only one of these plans actually needs to have restrictions on abortion—meaning that federal dollars will almost definitely be paying for abortions in the other state plan. And even this restriction is limited, and will have to be renewed every year.
• Money for “temporary high-risk pools”: Obamacare provides 5 billion dollars for “temporary high-risk pools” that will cover people with pre-existing conditions until the actual health care exchanges kick in 2014. This money goes straight to the states and is administered by them. Without abortion restrictions, the states are free to use this money to fund abortions if they feel like it. And in fact, some of them tried to do just that … until complaints by National Right to Life forced HHS to promise it would actually enforce Obama's executive order. This will last only as long as it takes to file a court challenge, however.

Vice President Biden has been going around the country saying that Obamacare is wonderful, but that it is simply “too complicated” to explain to the rubes out in the hustings. We disagree on many grounds, but most of all because it will force us—and all Americans—to pay for the execution of our unborn brothers and sisters.

Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute.

Don't vote for any politicians who will not revoke Obamacare.

Women terrorized by Chinese One Child Policy for 30 years

from Bradley Mattes, Life Issues Instittute

Imagine being fined – three, even four times your annual income – for having a baby a year too soon. Imagine having to raise your second child in secret. Imagine fearing a simple walk through town, knowing, at any moment, you might be plucked from the street, thrown into a truck, and forced to watch your unborn baby die. Now imagine that’s reality. Because for millions of families, it is.
This week marks the 30th anniversary of China ’s mandatory one-child policy. Incidentally, this week we’re also filming an emotional round of interviews on the topic for an upcoming episode of Facing Life Head-On. One researcher told us that seeing the saddened faces of women who had been forced into abortions they did not want – some as late as eight and nine months into the pregnancy – not only broke his heart but changed his views on abortion, too.
The very number of those saddened faces is staggering. In America , we’ve lost about 50 million babies since abortion became legal in 1973. In far less time, the Chinese people have suffered some 400 million abortions. (That’s more than the entire population of the United States !) Is it any wonder then that China also has the highest female suicide rate in the world? That’s certainly no coincidence.
Incredible suffering persists for those families. Sadly, we are not just allowing it to happen; we are paying for it. Millions of US dollars go to the United Nations Family Planning Fund, a group closely linked to carrying out the communist government’s coercive policies. Years ago, thanks to the courage of pro-life leaders, the US stopped sending money to groups promoting abortions – and certainly those loathsome enough to insist on forced abortions, sterilization and infanticide. But with the swipe of a pen, President Obama wasted no time in allowing those funds to freely flow once again. This is blood on our hands.
Ironically, so-called "pro-choice" organizations are remaining deadly silent as millions of women are forced to have abortions. But Americans can no longer ignore the responsibility we share in this global loss. That’s why our team is working hard to educate political leaders about the tragedy of abortion, both in the US and beyond.

Ultimately, population control advocates messed up their math. It’s not the number of babies born that is the problem. It’s each baby killed, each man and woman coerced, and each US dollar paying for the terror that is one too many. Until that stops, we certainly won’t. Please join us. Together, we’ll save lives all around the world.