Pro Life

Baby in the Womb Photos

2012-01-02T15:36:00.001+05:30

SF picking on pro-life centers

2011-12-20T16:29:00.002+05:30

San Francisco's new ordinance leveled at pro-life pregnancy centers will face federal court scrutiny. The core of the lawsuit is First Amendment viewpoint discrimination.

First Resort is a chain of pro-life centers filing the case. The group's CEO Shari Plunkett claims the Pregnancy Information Disclosure and Protection Ordination was "crafted to target one or two specific organizations and carefully shelter from its scope all groups whose viewpoints the city agrees with."

Paul Suis, a longtime board member for First Resort, explains to OneNewsNow that two layers of the ordinance ensure it could only be applied to pro-life pregnancy centers and not to abortion facilities.

"There's a 14th Amendment violation of equal protection because it singles out one group and favors it over another," he adds. "Again, that's related to the viewpoint discrimination theme."

In addition, the lawsuit contends regulation of pro-life pregnancy centers is not something a city should get involved in. The City by the Bay, says the pro-life spokesman, should be familiar with that aspect.

"San Francisco recently got burned on that subject when a group tried to put on the ballot an initiative forbidding circumcision," he notes, "and that was ruled to be pre-empted by California law and not a proper subject for a municipal initiative."

Similar ordinances against pro-life centers in Baltimore were ruled unconstitutional. Suis says there are differences in the San Francisco ordinance. "However, it's still blatant and explicit viewpoint discrimination," he argues. "It's still a requirement imposed only on one side of the debate."

If San Francisco tries to enforce the ordinance before the court decides the case, attorneys will seek an injunction to halt enforcement.

In a press release, First Resort identifies Alpha Pregnancy Center as the only other organization affected by the new ordinance.

What abortionists want

2011-12-17T20:34:00.001+05:30

By all accounts, several hundred thousand pro-abortion demonstrators rallied in the capital yesterday.
I don't know about you, but I can't figure out what it is they're protesting.
For most of the last 31 years, they have gotten their way.
Unrestricted abortion on demand has been treated by the political establishment as the law of the land.
It has been accepted by politicians and the court jesters as the law of the land since 1973.
The people, working through institutions of representative government and elections, have effectively been denied any say in the matter of abortion ever since.
Nevertheless, these malcontents still act threatened. These abortion fanatics still act as if they won't be happy until the state requires a license to birth a child in this country. These bleeding-hands liberals continue to act like an oppressed majority.
That's what I witnessed yesterday when these 250,000 baby-bashers met in Washington.
What exactly were they protesting? They got what they wanted.
It's worth noting that they didn't get their way because they showed their strength at the ballot box. It's worth noting that they didn't get their way because of superior organization in pushing legislation at the state or national levels. It's worth nothing that despite misusing the government schools to promote their propaganda, getting aid and comfort from the establishment media for their cause and having judicial tyrants ram their agenda down the throats of an unwilling public, they still haven't persuaded a significant majority of the righteousness of their cause.
They got what they wanted through intimidation, through authoritarianism, through top-down state control and by denying the people any say in the issue.
That's why I thought what the aging diva of the bleeding-hands liberals, Gloria Steinem, had to say was nearly comical.
"The desire to control reproduction is the mark of authoritarian governments around the world and, unfortunately, it's ours, as well," she said on CNN.
She's right that the desire to control reproduction is one of the marks of an authoritarian government. We can see that in China, where the central government limits parents to one child in most cases. This is a policy that has been applauded by many of Steinem's National Organization for Women colleagues for years.
For instance, former NOW President Molly Yard said, in 1989 on the Oprah Winfrey show: "We are going to have to face as China has faced the policy of controlling the size of families, and to assume that we can go on without facing the responsibility is totally irresponsible ... I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world ... It is a policy limited to the heavily overpopulated areas and it is an attempt to feed the people of China. I find it very intelligent."
She was hardly the first or last NOW leader to extol or, at least, excuse the most authoritarian reproduction policies in the world.
Steinem is also right when she calls U.S. national policy authoritarian. It is so because judicial tyrants have taken the matter of abortion out of the hands of the people – or at least the people have been bullied into believing they have.
So, I'm still puzzled. After listening to all the speeches, reading all the banners and listening to all the chanting at yesterday's rally in the capital. Just what is it these malcontent feminazis want now? Will they not be satisfied until all the unborn babies are torn apart?
Can someone help me out here?
What is it these abortion fanatics want now?

By Joseph Farah

PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT HAS TAKEN THE MARK OF THE BEAST

2011-12-15T16:12:00.002+05:30

The Bible speaks of a government in the last days that “makes war with the Lamb” (Rev. 13). This totalitarian state demands worship of its image – “the beast.” This government mandates a “mark” on the forehead or back of the hand in order to buy or sell. This government slays many martyrs. “Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man…” The mark represents the worship of man.
Throughout the book of Revelation, there is a distinction between those who “worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark” and those who “had gotten victory over the beast and his image, and his mark.” The former are judged and condemned to the lake of fire; the latter are received into heaven’s glory to rule and to reign with Christ forever.
What’s so evil about receiving a government-mandated mark in order to buy or sell? One must take care of his family, right? One must obey the “higher powers”, right? (Romans 13:1-4) “Obey those that have rule over you,” right? Receiving the “mark” is evil because one must violate God’s law and worship the image of the state in order to receive it. To worship the state is to commit idolatry, to rebel against God Almighty. God is the “highest power”, and disobeying God’s law to submit to man’s evil mandates is to receive a “mark” that brings condemnation.
The State Demands, “Render Unto Caesar That Which Is God’s”
The Roman pagans asked the church patriarch Polycarp, “What harm is it to say ‘Lord Caesar’ and sacrifice, and save yourself?”
As documented in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, Polycarp responded, “Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never once wronged me. How then shall I blaspheme my king, who hath saved me?”
They would have let Polycarp continue to worship Jesus Christ, as long as He paid homage to Caesar. But God did not give Polycarp the option of serving two masters (Matt. 6:24). God did not give Polycarp the option of being a friend of the world and a friend of God (James 4:4). God did not give Polycarp the option of worshiping the state and the Creator, of yielding to sin and to righteousness (Rom. 6:16). Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s.” Polycarp refused to render unto Caesar that which belonged only to God and was burnt at the stake for it.
Comparatively, what little cost there appears to be today to sacrifice to the state, to spurn God’s Word and will for the word and will of government. The greatest cost, however, is losing the blessing of God.
The Pro-Life Movement Prefers Man’s Word and Will to God’s
How does the pro-life movement worship the state over God?
Let’s contrast God’s word and will with the government’s word and will. God’s Word says, “Do no murder” (Sixth Commandment, Exod. 20). God’s Word further mandates the state to protect the innocent through enforcing a penalty sufficient to discourage the crime (Exod. 21, Rom. 13:3-4). God’s Word says that justice is a local matter (Deut. 21). God’s Word says that life begins in the womb. With regard to the killing of innocent children: “It is not the will of your Father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish” (Matt. 18:14). Not one.
In permitting innocent children of God to be slaughtered unjustly, our government is “at war with the Lamb” and in defiance of Almighty God. Our government is also at war with our U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court declares that it is unconstitutional for states to prohibit abortion, including the abortion of healthy babies mature enough to survive outside the womb. Don’t they know that the 14th Amendment says “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”? Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, in 1803, said, “A law repugnant [or repulsive] to the Constitution is void.” Would you cash a check with words “VOID” across the front of it? Well, then why do you respect Supreme Court decisions that are by their very nature just as null and void?
When the federal government rules contrary to the law of God and the U.S. Constitution, states should not obey them. Those who disobey God to submit to the evil commands of evil government, those who “sacrifice to Caesar” to protect and preserve their lives and positions are condemned by God. It is those who disobey the evil commands of evil government - even unto death - that are received into heaven to rule and reign with Christ. This was the understanding of both Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin when they both said, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” This was the Apostle Peter’s understanding when he said, “We ought to obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29).
As the federal judiciary consistently rules contrary to the U.S. Constitution and contrary to the law of God, much of the pro-life movement can be relied upon to tread the word of God and the U.S. Constitution underfoot in their submission to the High Court’s lawless rule.
Striking evidence can be seen in how several large pro-life groups responded to the Mississippi Personhood Amendment (which would have ended abortion in Mississippi, and yet failed to pass on November 8). Shirley Henderson, the director of communications for the Catholic Diocese of Biloxi, said this in early November:
“The stance of the Diocese of Biloxi is that the push for a state amendment could ultimately harm the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade.”
The Catholic Diocese of Jackson, which presides over Catholic churches in the upper half of Mississippi, said this in October,
“While we sincerely respect the goal to amend the Mississippi Constitution so as to acknowledge full human rights for every human being, after careful consideration, it is our opinion and that of the legal experts with whom we have consulted that passage of this amendment would not achieve the goal of overturning Roe v. Wade. If such an amendment were to pass, we are convinced that a federal district court would strike it down based on Roe. This decision would undoubtedly be affirmed by an appellate court, and the case would either not be granted further review by today’s U.S. Supreme Court, or worse, would lead to a reaffirmation of Roe. The unintended effect would very likely jeopardize current protections in state law and cause a loss of momentum in the ultimate goal of establishing full legal protection of the unborn from the moment of conception.”
Both Catholic Dioceses in Mississippi opposed or would not support the Mississippi Personhood Amendment because they feared the Supreme Court would strike it down. National Right to Life opposes statewide abortion bans and personhood amendments in state after state for the same reason. In 2006, Denise Mackura, the president of Ohio Right to Life bashed House Bill 228 - the Ohio Abortion Ban – as she testified before the Health Committee of the Ohio state legislature on the same grounds: it wouldn’t survive the judiciary. Americans United for Life, who did not support the Mississippi Personhood Amendment, said that it “would not have led to the overturn of Roe vs. Wade.”

We see a pattern. Some of the largest and well-funded pro-life groups in America would not support a simple amendment that declares life begins at fertilization – a fact with which they all agree – because of their respect for the lawless decisions of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s word trumped God’s Word and the U.S. Constitution in their mind, and they bowed to the Supreme Court’s word and will in defiance of God Almighty’s word and will. They’ve taken “the mark.”
The Supreme Court’s rule is not supreme: God and the U.S. Constitution are both supreme over the Supreme Court. The High Court’s jurisdiction is limited. Ohio shouldn’t respect the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion any more than we should respect the Supreme Court’s decision to worship a man and take a literal “mark.” Ohio is obligated by God to protect the innocent within our jurisdiction through law and penalty, even if we must defy the Supreme Court in doing so.
A good example of a state’s right to defy the Supreme Court when they usurp the Constitution and rule unlawfully is medical marijuana. In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that states may not allow medical marijuana. Presently, 16 states and the District of Columbia have all enacted laws to legalize marijuana for medical purposes. The states’ decision is based upon bad medicine, but I appreciate the states flexing their sovereign rights over their own constitutional jurisdiction (Article IX and X, Bill of Rights). If states have the courage to resist the Supreme Court for medical marijuana, why won’t states have the courage to resist the Supreme Court when tens of thousands of children are slaughtered under our noses every year? Why does the pro-life movement throw up the white flag of surrender so readily when the Supreme Court orders states to let innocent children be dismembered and disemboweled without access to justice? Because the pro-life movement has taken the “mark.”

5 myths about pro-lifers, and how to refute them

2011-12-14T13:21:00.002+05:30

December 13, 2011 (LiveAction.org) - There are a lot of negative stereotypes about the pro-life movement. I could easily write a list of 20 or more. These five, though, are the ones I personally encounter most often, and in the most capital letters. You’ll probably find them familiar. If you don’t know how to argue against these, you should.

5. We’re all brainwashed.

Okay, I admit it, the devil made me do it.

Since they can’t seem to wrap their brains around how a person might make an intelligent, informed decision to oppose abortion, anti-lifers sometimes like to assume we have all been duped. I have been accused, via Facebook, Twitter, email, and comment, of having been brainwashed by the following people or organizations: the Republican Party, Christians, the Vatican, white men, television, the conservative media, Sarah Palin, and the devil. I am not making any of those up.

While I suppose there are those who were raised inside Vatican walls and never heard a dissenting opinion, the truth is that even kids brought up in homes with pro-life parents were probably exposed to pro-abortion ideology somewhere along the way. It may have even happened without their knowledge.

Let me give you an example: I loved the movie Dirty Dancing as a kid. I wasn’t allowed to watch it, but I managed to watch it almost constantly, starting at around age ten. A major plot line in that movie is a main character having an abortion. Everyone is super casual about it, although they never use the word “abortion.” The girl ends up getting hurt by the procedure, but the impression is that this is because the woman had to go to an unsafe doctor with “a dirty knife and a folding table.” Then a real doctor is called and the girl is okay and everyone dances some more. The impression I got as a kid was that abortion was a tragic and sexy thing that pretty girls sometimes had to get because they were so desirable and awesome.

Sorry, Patrick.

I don’t remember hearing anything about abortion from my church or my mom or my friends. I only heard about it from TV and movies, and it was always portrayed in the same light: a sad but necessary thing that boyfriends should pay for while wearing sheepish expressions. I ended up pro-choice until age 27, when I made a decision, based on little or no Chinese water torture by any Popes or Palins, that abortion was wrong and must be ended.

The best way to combat this stereotype is to share your own story. Let anti-lifers know the sound, rational, scientific and ethical reasons on which you base your pro-life activism. And don’t let your kids watch Dirty Dancing.

4. We’re violent.

This is my least favorite myth because it’s the least true. The pro-life movement is by definition an outcry against a violent act.

Eight people have been killed in the United States by anti-abortion protesters. Last I heard, they had all been caught and punished. Fifty million babies have been killed — legally — by abortionists since 1973. Yet we’re the side that gets called violent. Fifty million to eight… Those are pretty dramatic numbers. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say it’s safer to be an abortionist than an unborn baby. Somebody somewhere is probably going to quote that in outrage, never mind the fact that is statistically 100% true.

The pro-life movement as a whole continuously and widely condemns acts of violence, yet anyone who professes a pro-life viewpoint is subject to being called a “clinic bomber.” Eight people — out of hundreds of millions — do not represent the movement, especially when their actions have been decried countless times.

If someone accuses you of belonging to a violent movement, remind them that since Roe v. Wade, every year an average of 1.2 million unborn children have been killed in the U.S., versus an average of two-tenths of an abortionist. The numbers don’t lie.

3. We’re all religious, conservative, and old.

There’s nothing wrong with being religious, conservative, or old, but it’s a mischaracterization. I am a conservative Catholic in my early 30s now, but when I became pro-life, I was a liberal agnostic in my 20s. While many — probably most — pro-lifers believe in some sort of deity, or at least in the human soul, not all of them do. The arguments that made me pro-life were grounded in science, ethics, and human rights. They had nothing to do with religion.

The friend who changed my mind knew better than to use a religious argument with me; I would have stopped listening. I was already wary because she was Catholic. I guess I thought she would sprinkle holy water on me while I wasn’t looking. But she didn’t. She just answered my questions — I had a lot of them — and by the end of the conversation I was, quite against my will, pro-life. I have remained so ever since.

I was also not a conservative, and many — including the friend I mentioned — remain pro-life and liberal or Democrat. The atheist, liberal New Yorker writer Nat Hentoff, after “coming out” as pro-life, experienced a backlash of negativity from fellow writers, intellectuals, atheists, Jews, and Democrats, but he stayed pro-life and a “civil libertarian” for the rest of his career.

A lot of people, when they think of pro-life activists, think of little old ladies saying the rosary outside a clinic. God bless those little old ladies and the work they do, but the truth is the pro-life movement is becoming a youth movement. Despite the fact that society in general seems to get more secular and less conservative, more and more young people oppose abortion. There is no consensus as to why, but it may have something to do with advancing science and technology. We know far more about the unborn human today than we did when Roe v. Wade was decided.

If someone tells you all pro-lifers are middle-aged white Christian Republicans, tell them they’re wrong — even if you are a middle-aged white Christian Republican. I have known pro-lifers of every age, color, religion, and political persuasion. If you don’t, try to get to know some. They’re everywhere! Check out Secular Pro-Life, Pagans for Life, or Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League. They may have a perspective you haven’t considered, which will help build your arsenal of pro-life knowledge and arguments, and make your parties more interesting.

2. We’re hypocrites if we oppose abortion but don’t oppose (fill in the blank).

Can you be pro-life and pro-death penalty? Yes. Can you be pro-life and support the war in Iraq? Yes. Can you be pro-life and eat meat? Yes.

You can’t compare these things to abortion. You can’t compare anything to abortion, except certain instances of euthanasia, which by the way are also covered under the pro-life umbrella.

Abortion is child murder. It’s the intentional killing of an innocent human being. And when I say “innocent,” I mean it in the most literal sense. I don’t mean “innocent” of murder, shoplifting, or appearing on “Jersey Shore,” though all of these are undeniably bad things. I mean completely innocent. The unborn child has never harmed a living soul. He did not cause his own existence. He did not ask to be conceived. He is brought to life and, in an abortion, he is killed, most often for the same reason he was conceived: because his mother made a choice.

No act compares to abortion in its heinousness. So don’t let anyone tell you that you must oppose the death penalty, or war, or meat if you are pro-life. Explain the difference between incidental death and intentional. Explain to them the difference between a cow and a human. Explain to them the difference between a convicted criminal and an unborn baby.

1. We have an ulterior motive.

This is the most common argument you will hear, and it honestly doesn’t even deserve the term “argument.” It is a non-argument. An argument would be, “Abortion is okay because the fetus isn’t human,” or “Abortion is okay because the unborn deserve no rights.” Those are arguments. They’re wrong, but they’re arguments. Instead, I am often accused of pretending to be against abortion when what I really want to do is one of the following:

Take all human rights away from women.

Stop everyone from having sex.

Encourage child abuse.

Make promiscuous girls feel bad about themselves.

And so on. So instead of saying, “Abortion should be legal because….,” the presenter of this “argument” says, “Well, you just want to enforce your Puritanical sexual values.” Or, “You just want people to have babies they can’t afford.” And so on.

Look. I’m gonna take this opportunity to come out with it: I am secretly okay with abortion. I honestly don’t mind if women go into clinics and pay doctors to suck their children out of them. What I’m really after, what I’ve really wanted all along, is to engage in “slut-shaming.”

Apparently "slut-shaming" is a real thing that people are against. This was taken at the SlutWalk Toronto.... Yeeeeah.

This is my favorite non-argument ever. Written by “freelance journalist and stand-up comic” Amanda Grimes (whose graduate thesis was on “gender and stand-up comedy”), this blog made me literally wipe tears of laughter from my eyes. So she’s got the comedy part down! According to Grimes, pro-lifers aren’t really interested in saving lives. What they secretly want to do — wait for it — is make slutty girls feel bad about themselves. You heard me. The ulterior motive behind the pro-life movement, according to Andrea Grimes, is “slut-shaming.”

Ms. Grimes, if by “slut-shaming” you mean encouraging young women to behave in ways that will result in less pain for themselves, their children, and society, it is certainly on my list of reasons for opposing abortion. However, I hate to break it to you, reason number one is that I am actually nutso enough to believe in the sanctity of every human life. Sorry to disappoint. Now get back to that groundbreaking, totally relevant thesis!

By the way, for the record, you know what changed Grimes’s mind about abortion? I’ll let her say it in her own words:

Well, I got off my religious high horse and on to a sex life I enjoyed and found fulfilling.

That is… profound, isn’t it? She went to college, lost her virginity, and found out sex was fun! So then she discarded all the morals her parents went to the trouble to teach her, and ”went right the f*** out” and got on birth control, which, as it often does, led her to going right the eff out and feeling okay about abortion. “I believe wanting to take that choice away from others is deeply about shame and punishment and judgment, and not about righteousness and love.”

Guess what, Grimes? Just because you believe something about us doesn’t make it true.

So apparently, Ms. Grimes did not believe in the sanctity of life. She was merely having fun “slut-shaming.” But just because she didn’t have strong, factual, righteous, loving reasons for opposing abortion doesn’t mean that’s the case for you, or me, or any other pro-lifer.

Don’t let anyone assign you intentions that aren’t yours. We are pro-life because we care for women and their children. We are pro-life because we believe in human rights. Don’t give an inch when it comes to your reasons for opposing abortion.

If you engage in any kind of pro-life activism you are going to encounter resistance. Not all of it will be honest, pleasant, or fair. If they haven’t yet, people are going to assume things about you and assign you traits and beliefs that don’t belong to you. (We’ll get to the name calling in another article.)

Learn to politely, rationally, tell them why they’re wrong, and bring the issue back to what it’s really about: the reprehensible act of abortion, what it truly is, and why we have to stop it.

Pro-Life Voters More Energized to Defeat Obama in 2012

2011-12-14T13:20:00.001+05:30

Pro-life voters looking for some good news heading into 2012 and the battle to defeat pro-abortion President Barack Obama got some good news today as new numbers from USA Today polls showed a shift in the right direction.

The new USA TODAY/Gallup Swing States Poll finds the number of voters who identify themselves as Democratic or Democratic-leaning in a dozen of the top battle ground states are getting out of Obama’s party. They percentage dropped 4 percent while the number of Republican voters in those states, who are looking for an Obama replacement, is up 5 percent.

The poll also shows Republican voters are more enthusiastic about voting in the 2012 presidential election than their Democratic counterparts. Some 61 percent of Republicans are enthusiastic compared with 47 percent of Democrats.

Key groups of Republicans — conservatives, middle-aged men and those 50 to 64 years old — are most enthusiastic while core Democratic groups that were critical to Obama’s election in 2008, including minorities and younger voters are least enthusiastic.

“The contrasting conditions of the nation’s two major political parties — discouraged Democrats and resurgent Republicans — underscore how different Obama’s re-election campaign is from the contest four years ago,” USA Today said. “Consider the math: In 2008, when Obama carried the swing states by 8 percentage points, Democrats there swamped Republicans in party identification by 11 points. Now, that partisan edge has tightened to a statistically insignificant 2 points.”

“Republicans are more likely to be paying a lot of attention than Democrats — 69% to 48% — and they are more likely to say the election’s outcome will make a major difference to the course of the economy,” the newspaper reported.

Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus told the newspaper, “Enthusiasm is a tremendous benefit. We’re going to be able to mobilize a grass-roots army. It helps us recruit volunteers and run absentee-ballot programs. We can fill rooms with people making phone calls and going door-to-door.”

The 12 swing states in the poll included: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

In those 12 states, Obama trails former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney by a 48-43 percentage point margin. And he trails former Speaker Newt Gingrich by a 48-45 percentage point margin.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, says pro-life people need to get engaged now to replace the abortion advocate with someone who can give the pro-life movement a chance to roll back the pro-abortion policies Obama put in place and change the makeup of the Supreme Court to allow for legal protection for unborn children.

“If we’re going to defeat Barack Obama, the Abortion President, and replace him with an authentic leader for Life in 2012, we must start laying the groundwork now by building our war chest,” she said.

“Nothing could be more important than electing a pro-life president in 2012. We must reverse the onslaught of anti-Life policies and go on the offensive for unborn children,” she added.

Dannenfelser said she is pleased some of the Republican presidential candidates have signed the group’s pledge — calling for de-funding abortion and Planned Parenthood, legislation to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on the scientific evidence showing fetal pain, and a commitment to appointing the kinds of judges who will not uphold the invention of a fictitious right to abortion. She also said pro-life issues have to be “core” issues in the 2012 election campaign and make it to “the forefront of the presidential race.”

“We’ll ensure that our voice for the unborn is louder and stronger than those who call for truces, or those who think social issues don’t matter,” she said of what SBA would do between now and the November 2012 elections.

Dannenfelser also encouraged pro-life advocates to expose the lengthy pro-abortion record Obama has compiled.

“Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion president our nation has ever seen. The SBA List will educate key swing voters in battleground states on President Obama’s record. We’ll expose his unwavering support for pro-abortion judges and taxpayer funding of abortion. Polls show that when pro-life voters are educated and mobilized, they can provide the margin of victory in close races,” she said.

“The stakes are high. Every day in our nation, four thousand children die from abortion while that many women are left hurt and scarred,” Dannenfelser continued. “Not only are we going up against President Obama’s re-election campaign team and the Democratic National Committee, but you can bet that the pro-abortion lobby is raising funds right now to ensure Barack Obama is re-elected. Unborn children cannot take another four years of Barack Obama sitting in the White House and Kathleen Sebelius directing Health and Human Services.”

Dannenfelser worries the fate of abortion could be sealed for some time if Obama gets another four years to advance abortion, saying, “I strongly believe that if Barack Obama is elected to another term, he will only ramp up his anti-Life agenda.”

She encouraged pro-life people to begin to “aggressively lay the groundwork to defeat Barack Obama and elect a true pro-life President in 2012. With a pro-life leader in the White House, we can reverse the damage done by the Obama administration and quickly go on the offensive to pass laws that will save the lives of unborn babies and their mothers.”

Prayer for Aborted Babies

2009-12-24T10:59:00.000+05:30

Heavenly Father,
Thou hast given us the gift of freedom
to love and to follow in Thy ways and commands.
Some parents choose to abuse this freedom
by destroying the gift of life
which Thou hast given to their offspring.
Please forgive those who destroy human life
by aborting their unborn babies.
Give these unborn children the opportunity
to enjoy Thee for all eternity,
if it according to Thy ordinance.
Assist me in being one in solidarity with Thy little ones
by taking to heart the words of Thy Son,
"whatever you did for one of these least brothers of Mine,
you did for Me." (Mt. 25:40)
Therefore, allow me today, Father,
to adopt spiritually an unborn child
and to offer my prayers, works,
joys and sufferings for that little one,
so that child will be able to be born and live
for Thy greater honor and glory.
We pray this in Jesus' name,
in union with the Holy Spirit one God forever and ever.

Amen.

Americans using surrogacy to create made-to-order babies

2009-12-24T10:54:00.000+05:30

Different regulatory approaches to surrogacy in the US can result in legal tangles, according to a report in The New York Times Magazine. The "lax atmosphere" of surrogacy regulation "means that it is now essentially possible to order up a baby, creating an emerging commercial market for surrogate babies that raises vexing ethical questions."

The Times gives three disturbing examples.

After years of infertility, Amy and Scott Kehoe decided to hire a surrogate. They purchased sperm from an anonymous donor, who is a high-achieving college student and employed a surrogate mother. Their twins were born on July 28.

But the babies are now in the custody of the surrogate mother, Laschell Baker, after she acquired a court order to remove the children from Ms Kehoe’s care. Upon discovering that Ms Kehoe was suffering from a mental illness, Ms Baker feared for the children’s safety. “I couldn’t see living the rest of my life worrying and wondering what had happened, or what if she hadn’t taken her medicine, or what if she relapsed,” Ms Baker told the Times. Baker already has four children of her own, and plans to raise the twins, Bridget and Ethan, with her husband Paul.

Five parties were involved in this transaction: the sperm donor, the egg donor, Ms Baker and the Kehoes -- plus the two middlemen who brokered the sperm and eggs.

Lawyers say that fewer problems arise when there is a genetic link between the prospective parents and the offspring. Very often, gestational surrogacy involves two parents who are able to produce eggs and sperm of their own, but the woman is unable to carry a baby. Most surrogacy arrangements run smoothly, and doctors say that they can be highly fulfilling.

Another case involved an eccentric 60-year-old who engaged a sperm donor, an egg donor, a surrogate mother to produce twin girls. From the moment of the birth there were allegations of neglect and utter incompetence as a parent. He had approached the transaction so carelessly that he has had to fight several attempts to remove the girls from his care.

The third involved a woman who agreed to be a gestational surrogate for her brother and his male partner. The partner donated sperm and the woman carried the child to birth. The trio are now fighting for custody of 3-year-old twin girls. The woman now claims that she is the mother even though she did not supply the eggs for the process.

In the US, there is no centralised authority regulating surrogacy. Although fertility doctors have a financial stake in the process, they basically control the process. California upholds surrogacy agreements, but Michigan doesn't.

George J. Annas, a Boston University bioethicist, said, “This is the main problem with commercialization, seeing children as a consumer product. This is especially true when there is no genetic connection with the child,” he told the Times last week. “It really does treat children like commodities. Like pets.”

Voice for the Voiceless-Becca

2009-12-02T19:47:00.000+05:30

When I was 19, I was pregnant, scared and alone. I had were many 'choices.' I gave my son up for adoption at birth, by choice. Seven years later, he is happy, healthy and well-taken care of by his adoptive parents . . .

I would like to share my story of courage with your readers. I have made it one of my life's goals to eliminate the stigma and negative connotation that adoption carries in our society. I would also like to educate people about open adoption. I might be able to use pictures if my son's parents allow! Any opportunity to share my story is appreciated. The work you are doing is so important! Thank You.

Becca, Massachusetts

Oops, I'm Pregnant......Pregnancy Advice, Guides, Counselors & More.

2009-12-02T19:43:00.001+05:30

"I think it's sickening that you can actually do something like this," Tyronica Tunstall, Jimella's cousin, told the Post-Dispatch. "I hope Jimella wasn't living when the baby was cut out."

While Tunstall bled to death, Hall called 911 from a park in nearby Centreville, saying that she gave birth to a stillbornbaby. Hall and the baby were taken to a hospital, where she told police several conflicting stories and refused to be examined by doctors, the Post-Dispatch reported. Since the baby showed no sign of trauma, her body was released to Hall.

After the baby girl was buried September 21, Hall confessed to her boyfriend that she killed Tunstall and claimed the baby as her own, according to the Chicago Tribune. The boyfriend, a sailor on leave from the Navy, called police and they soon found Tunstall's body and arrested Hall.

The next day, police discovered that Tunstall had three other children. After nationwide alerts and a massive search, investigators discovered the bodies of seven-year-old DeMond, two-year-old Ivan, and one-year-old Jinela stuffed into the washer and dryer in Tunstall's apartment, the Tribune reported. An autopsy later showed that the children, last seen with Hall, who often babysat them, on September 18, had been drowned and their naked bodies placed in the appliances.

Hall, currently in jail on a $5 million bond, pled not guilty September 25 in Tunstall and the baby's deaths. Authorities are still investigating the murders of the three older children, and prosecutors expect to present the case to a grand jury October 6, according to the Associated Press.

Ohio "Choose Life" License Plate Lawsuit Dropped

A lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Ohio's specialty "Choose Life" license plates has been dropped, as a result of the Supreme Court's June 26 refusal to overturn an appeals court decision approving similar plates in Tennessee, according to the Columbus Dispatch.

The license plates feature a drawing of a boy and girl with the phrases "Adoption builds a family" and "Choose life." They cost an extra $30 each year, $20 of which goes to groups that counsel women about adoption. The plates became available last year, and 2,299 have been sold since then, the Dispatch reported.

The American Civil Liberties Union American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), nonpartisan organization devoted to the preservation and extension of the basic rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution. (ACLU ACLU: see American Civil Liberties Union. ), representing NARAL NARAL National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League Pro-Choice Ohio, filed the suit arguing that the license plate program unfairly promoted only one side of the abortion debate. The ACLU had already lost in one court, when U.S. Judge Donald Nugent upheld the Ohio plates in September 2005, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported. "There is an arguable benefit to the public in providing funding for adoption-related services separate and apart from any political or ideological arguments involved," Nugent ruled.

The case was on appeal to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had previously decided in March that Tennessee's Choose Life plates were constitutional. After the U.S. Supreme Court let the Tennessee appeals court decision stand, the ACLU knew the Ohio case had no chance for success in that court, according to the Dispatch.

"Our case had been stayed pending the outcome of the Tennessee case," ACLU attorney Carrie Davis told the Dispatch. "Once the stay was lifted, we filed to drop the case."

Studies Show Improvement after Adult Stem Cell Treatment of Heart Disease Studies published in the September 21 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine The New England Journal of Medicine (New Engl J Med or NEJM) is an English-language peer-reviewed medical journal published by the Massachusetts Medical Society. It is one of the most popular and widely-read peer-reviewed general medical journals in the world. (NEJM NEJM New England Journal of Medicine ) show some modest but definite improvement after heart attack survivors were given stem cells stem cells, unspecialized human or animal cells that can produce mature specialized body cells and at the same time replicate themselves. Embryonic stem cells are derived from a blastocyst (the blastula typical of placental mammals; see embryo), which is very young obtained from their own bone marrow.

"Recent randomized ran·dom·ize
tr.v. ran·dom·ized, ran·dom·iz·ing, ran·dom·iz·es
To make random in arrangement, especially in order to control the variables in an experiment. studies of cell therapy for heart disease represent a milestone in this rapidly developing field while serving as a cogent reminder that many important clinical and fundamental questions have yet to be addressed," wrote Dr. Anthony Rosenzweig of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Both an international and regional referral center, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) in Boston, Massachusetts is a major teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School. It was formed out of the 1996 merger of Beth Israel Hospital (founded in 1916) and and Harvard Stem Cell stem cell

In living organisms, an undifferentiated cell that can produce other cells that eventually make up specialized tissues and organs. There are two major types of stem cells, embryonic and adult. Institute in an editorial in the same issue of NEJM. "The ultimate success of this strategy is likely to depend on continued and effective coordination of rigorous basic and clinical investigations."

Although one study by a team in Norway did not show significant improvement in six months between patients who were given stem cells derived from bone marrow (BMC (BMC Software, Inc., Houston, TX, www.bmc.com) A leading supplier of software that supports and improves the availability, performance, and recovery of applications in complex computing environments. ) and a control group who received no cells, two other studies from Germany were encouraging.

Researchers at Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany, led by senior author Andreas M. Zeiher, gave 204 patients who had suffered a heart attack either an injection of blood marrow stem cells or a placebo. At four months, according to the NEJM report, measurements showed that the improvement of the heart's efficiency in the BMC group was "significantly greater" than the placebo group.

"This double-blind and fully controlled trial controlled trial Clinical research A clinical study in which one group of participants receives an experimental drug while the other receives either a placebo or an approved–'gold standard' therapy. See Blinding, Double-blinded. provides the best evidence yet for beneficial effects of BMC after acute myocardial infarction acute myocardial infarction (·kyōōtˑ mī·ō·karˑ·dē· [heart attack]," wrote Rosenzweig

Rosenzweig also wrote that the German researchers "found the rate of adverse clinical events to be significantly lower at 1 year among patients receiving BMC than among those receiving placebo. ... [I]t reinforces the message that BMC infusion is not only feasible but also safe, and it raises the possibility that clinical benefits may exceed the modest improvement seen in ventricular function ventricular function,
n the cyclic contraction and relaxation of the ventricular myocardium. ."

Another study by researchers at Goethe University gave 75 patients either no cells, BMC, or cells derived from circulated blood, according to the NEJM report. The BMC group showed small but significant improvement after three months.

"Although the benefit observed after BMC infusion was modest ... , it is remarkable that any benefit was seen in these patients, who were studied on average more than 6 years after infarction and who were already receiving optimal medical care," Rosenzweig wrote. "The ... trial suggests that BMC can have effects beyond simple acceleration of healing after infarction. Whether repeated infusions would yield additive benefits and whether these benefits would persist will be important questions for future trials."

Abortion Leads to Murder-Suicide

According to an eyewitness, Plantation, Florida, police officer Laura Grunas blamed her boyfriend, firefighter Robert Peat, for the abortion death of her unborn baby before killing him and then turning the gun on herself, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel The South Florida Sun-Sentinel, owned by the Tribune Company, is the main daily newspaper of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and all of Broward County. Its main competitor in this area is the Miami Herald, out of neighboring Miami-Dade County to the south. reported.

Reserve police officer and volunteer firefighter Michael Roth, a friend of the couple, watched as Grunas, 30, and Peat, 31, were fiercely arguing on the afternoon of August 4. Neighbors told the Miami Herald that Grunas was yelling, "Why is everyone blaming this on me? He killed my baby."

"Roth advised that Peat had told him that when they found out she was pregnant, they decided to terminate the pregnancy," Detective Brian Kendall wrote in a report, according to the Sun-Sentinel. "Peat was enormously upset about it due to religious beliefs, but felt that it was the right thing to do."

But Peat told Roth that after the abortion "things had been getting progressively worse."

Police were called to the scene and asked Grunas to leave, the Herald reported. However, Grunas returned at about 8 p.m. and confronted Peat. She then used her service revolver to fatally shoot him in the chest before killing herself, according to the Herald.

Friends, relatives, and fellow police officers and firefighters said they were shocked at Grunas and Peat's deaths. "[Grunas] had an outgoing personality, was pleasant to be around," Michael Hanlon, president of the department's Fraternal Order of Police The Fraternal Order of Police is a US-based organization of sworn law enforcement officers. It is the world's largest organization of rank and file sworn officers, with over 2100 local lodges and over 325,000 members. lodge, told the Sun-Sentinel. "I never had the slightest inkling that this was going on."

"It's a terrible loss to everyone that worked with [Peat] and the fire department in general," Joe Hernandez, Peat's battalion chief, told the Sun-Sentinel.

Mother Arrested in Forced Abortion Attempt

The mother of a 16-year-old Columbus, Georgia, girl allegedly forced her twice to drink turpentine turpentine, yellow to brown semifluid oleoresin exuded from the sapwood of pines, firs, and other conifers. It is made up of two principal components, an essential oil and a type of resin that is called rosin. in an attempt to kill the girl's unborn baby, according to the Associated Press (AP). Rozzelletta Blackshire was arrested September 22 and charged with criminal abortion criminal abortion Obstetrics Deliberate and illegal termination of pregnancy. See Abortion, Roe v Wade. Cf Webster decision. and first-degree cruelty to children. Also arrested were two cousins, Shonda Blackshire and Monica Johnson, who were charged with criminal abortion, the AP reported.

"The mother and two cousins were involved in forcibly having her to take a quantity of turpentine on two different occasions explaining to her that their help would help kill her baby and do away with her pregnancy," said Lt. J.R. McMichael of the Columbus Police Department, according to WTVM.

The unidentified girl told school counselors about the incidents, and police have placed her in protective custody An arrangement whereby a person is safeguarded by law enforcement authorities in a location other than the person's home because his or her safety is seriously threatened. , WTVM reported. Examinations have shown no injury to her or the baby, and she continues to carry the baby to term, according to WTVM.

Illinois Woman Charged with Killing Mother and Unborn Child

2009-12-02T19:41:00.000+05:30

In a gruesome and tragic case, an Illinois woman has been charged with first-degree murder and intentional homicide of an unborn child in the September 15 deaths of Jimella Tunstall, 24, and her seven-month-old unborn baby girl. Police are also investigating Hall for the drowning deaths of Tunstall's other children, aged 7, 2, and 1.

Voice for the Voiceless-Jennifer

2009-12-01T11:47:00.010+05:30

Thank you for standing up for those who are unable to stand up for themselves (unborn children). See the little miracle God gifted me with.

Testimony
It’s not like I woke up one morning and thought to myself, “Gee, I think I want to be a single mom.” It is by far the most challenging journey I have ever taken and yet, it’s brought me the most fulfilling a delightful moments of my life. Being given the opportunity to birth and raise my son has been God’s greatest gift.

I knew I was pregnant. I couldn’t explain it; I just felt… different. When I took the pregnancy test that confirmed new life brewing inside of me, that moment not only changed my life forever but, it caused me to hyperventilate and fall on the bathroom floor of a busy office.

When I called my son’s sperm donor (I call him this because he doesn’t actually parent at all), he seemed much more calm than I imagined. I imagined he would demand for me to abort my pregnancy and I would have to run away from him. At that time, we were facing some very serious challenges and he had been charged with a felony. Although he was calm, he wasn’t supportive. His parents suggested we abort our pregnancy and he even brought up the possibility. I am a very strong-minded woman and knowing it was my choice – alone, I knew I would never consider and was prepared to reject, even shun any suggestions to abort my pregnancy.

I was 8 weeks pregnant when I left my son’s sperm donor and returned home to the Seattle area. I had been supporting this man emotionally for some time and realized I had nothing left to give, especially after being told I was no longer loved by him. My friends and family were waiting for me, with opens arms. Realizing I needed their support and love, I was more than relieved to be back home. I moved into a one-bedroom apartment and began planning for the new addition in my life. It was strange to be pregnant and alone. So many moments I felt I needed to share with someone else who was just as excited as I was about the life inside of me. When I found out I was having a boy, I named him Tyler. I bought blue - everything. When he kicked me at night, there was no one lying next to me to share the joy. All the special moments of pregnancy were only shared between my unborn child and I. When I woke up in labor, it seemed strange to not be able to turn to someone beside me and say, “It’s time, honey.” It was obvious; I was missing something.

Tyler was born 3 weeks early, on February 20th, 2004. He weighed 6 pounds, 9 ounces and was 19.5 inches in length. He was born with a full head of white blonde hair. He was absolutely beautiful. I couldn’t take my eyes off of him for even a moment. I couldn’t put him down…. I still can’t, sometimes.

Tyler and I adjusted to our new lives together fairly easily. I went back to work when he was 7 weeks old and I only cried every day for two weeks!! Fortunately, he has always been a really good kid. He somehow knows that mommy not only has to work, but had to keep on top of the laundry, the dishes, groceries and the most important responsibility of all – being a mom. He has his moments and throws a few tantrums here and there, but what can I say? He’s almost 2!!

I am now engaged to an incredible man. He wants to adopt Tyler and the two of them are quite attached. It’s really neat to see. He’s a father to Tyler without me asking or expecting. He’s man, a real man.

The last two and a half years have been really hard and truly amazing, at the same time. I am not sure where I would have been without Tyler in my life. He’s taught me so much about who I am and who God meant for me to be. Children change our lives. Sure, it’s challenging to be a parent and even more challenging to be a single parent. Most things in life worthwhile have their share of challenges. Children are gifts and we all make choices that make their existence inevitable. Whether we choose to carry out our unplanned pregnancy or abort it, we can never change the fact that this life did or does exist. God created life and I have had the privilege of carrying a life into this world.

Jennifer, Oregon

Pro-Life Victory as Northern Ireland Abortion Guidelines Rejected by High Court

2009-12-01T11:40:00.000+05:30

Pro-life advocates in Northern Ireland are celebrating a major court victory today as the Belfast High Court has ordered the recall of health guidelines that they said would have undermined and effectively overturned the province's pro-life laws.
Lord Justice Girvan found that the guidelines failed to deal properly with conscientious objection to abortion and counseling on abortion. The judge said the guidelines were open to misinterpretation, saying the language was "ambiguous" and left doctors and staff unclear as to what was expected of them. The judge said the guidelines needed to be absolutely clear, otherwise they represented "a trap to the unwary."
Justice Girvan awarded court costs against the Northern Ireland Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
Liam Gibson, Northern Ireland officer for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) said, "We hope that the department will now take seriously many of the concerns which were largely disregarded when the guidelines were being drafted."
Pro-life groups argued in court that the guidelines failed to mention the fact that abortion remains a criminal offense in Northern Ireland. They said they were "misleading and legally inaccurate" and would have brought abortion on demand into the province by "bureaucratic stealth."
SPUC had argued that it was wrong for the Department of Health to expect health care workers to give "non-directive counselling" to women considering abortion.
"It is simply extraordinary that a government department should have issued guidance on criminal legislation and not have once mentioned the victim of the crime," Gibson said.
Bernadette Smyth, director of Northern Ireland's leading pro-life group Precious Life, said, "The court decision today is a victory for our unborn children." Precious Life ran a petition campaign calling for the withdrawal of the guidelines.
"Our assessment that the guidelines were legally and medically flawed has been vindicated. They were an attempt to change the interpretation of the law and would have effectively legalised abortion in Northern Ireland through the back door."

That Britain's 1967 Abortion Act does not apply in Northern Ireland continues to irritate abortion advocates who campaign ceaselessly to overturn the province's law. Opposition in the province to abortion remains strong, however, from both the public and most political parties, including the Social Democrats, Labour Party, Sinn Féin, the Ulster Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party as well as the Catholic Church and evangelical Protestant groups.
In October 2007 a motion was passed in the Northern Ireland Assembly, tabled by MLAs Jeffrey Donaldson and Iris Robinson, that rejected the draft guidelines. Nevertheless, the status of the guidelines remained ambiguous for a year while pro-life groups launched their legal challenge.

Detroit Archbishop Leads Prayer Walk outside Abortion Facilities

2009-12-01T11:33:00.000+05:30

Detroit Archbishop Allen Vigneron led parishioners of the archdiocese in a pro-life prayer march in front of two abortion facilities on Saturday, November 21st. The prayer march was preceded by an early morning mass and concluded with Eucharistic benediction.
We "must be a witness patterned after God Himself: generous, kind, patient, but undaunting and constant," said the archbishop at the 7:30 Mass opening the event.
The archbishop explained: "It is God's plan that the whole world would somehow reflect His greatness, and that we, men and women, the human beings of His who form the crown of His creation in this world, would cherish the capacity for the generation of life."
After the opening Mass, held at St. Joan of Arc parish, people gathered at St. Veronica's church for a rosary procession under the banner of Our Lady of Guadalupe. The procession, the last of four this year sponsored by Helpers of God's Precious Infants of Michigan, was the largest yet, with an estimated 450-700 in attendance.
From St. Veronica's the participants proceeded to 8 Mile Road, close to two abortion facilities, while praying the 20 decades of the rosary. Most of the participants knelt for a moment of silence after the prayers.
Archbishop Vigneron told Ave Maria Radio that such prayers, are "profoundly important."
"First of all, your know, I don't even think in any way what we do should be identified as a demonstration," he said. "It's a witness; we're there witnessing to the Gospel of life."
"Everybody works very hard to create an atmosphere of serenity and respect. Even for the people who are responsible for abortion."
Parishioner of Assumption Grotto Parish in Detroit, Diane Korzeniewski similarly told LifeSiteNews that the "vigil was not a protest, but a prayer."
"There was no anger or hatred. Rather, the vigil was rooted in genuine Christian love for all involved - including the staff workers at the clinic."
After praying, parishioners returned to St. Joan of Arc's where Monsignor Bugarin of St. Joan of Arc offered benediction. Those who were unable to walk had remained in adoration of the Blessed Sacrament during the march.

Voice for the Voiceless

2009-11-29T11:41:00.000+05:30

We have had four children that are sooooo sweet and cute. Two of them the doctors said I should abort because they will have Down syndrome. They said it so matter of factly like, well, will you be considering terminating your pregnancy? I couldn't believe that these ultra-sound techs and doctors are influencing SO MANY abortions just by suggesting it as the thing to do to pregnant mothers. All four of my kids (2 girls and 2 boys) are soooo smart and really cute. They are winning awards in academics and helping feed the homeless. There is NOTHING wrong with my kids. I feel sorry for the women who are given bad information, are unsure, and end up aborting their perfectly normal babies because of fear. This same thing happened to my sister. Her daughter is genius level, and they told her to abort when she was pregnant because they said her baby would be mentally handicapped. I wish there was a way we could stop this misinformation that is leading to loving moms killing their babies. I wish it could never happen to another mother/child ever again.

For the Vatican it's Clear - Pro-Abortion Politicians 'Must' be Denied Communion

2009-11-29T11:38:00.000+05:30

With the Patrick Kennedy Communion flap and the recent action of the Bishops of Spain having opened up the issue of denying communion to pro-abortion politicians, it is worthwhile to review the position of the Vatican on the matter.
Since the controversy came to a head in 2004, the stance from the Vatican on the matter has been clear and consistent. For the Pope and top Curial Cardinals in charge of the matter there is no question about the responsibility to deny Holy Communion to Catholic politicians who obstinately support abortion. In fact, the issue was closed as early as 2004 with a letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.
The then-head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith intervened into a debate among the US Bishops on the issue. Simply put, Cardinal Ratzinger said in his letter titled "Worthiness to receive Holy Communion," that a Catholic politician who would vote for "permissive abortion and euthanasia laws" after being duly instructed and warned, "must" be denied Communion.
Ratzinger's letter explained that if such a politician "with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it."
The letter even answered common objections such as how to deal with politicians that supported war or the death penalty in light of denial of Communion to pro-abortion politicians.
The man who is now Pope, explained: "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
Since then, Pope Benedict XVI has confirmed this position speaking as Pope. Answering a reporter on an in-flight press conference in 2007, Pope Benedict addressed a question on the Mexican bishops excommunicating politicians who support legalizing abortion. "Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion, which is receiving the body of Christ," said the Pope.
In the comment, the Pope was referring to the Church's Canon law 915, which states: "Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion."
The highest authority on the subject in the Vatican, next to the Pope, is the head (or Prefect) of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal Canizares. The head of that Congregation, appointed by Pope Benedict XVI a year ago, quoted the Ratzinger document on the question in a LifeSiteNews interview earlier this year.
In addition, Cardinal Antonio Canizares stated: "The strongest words are found in St. Paul: one who goes to the Eucharist and is not properly prepared, duly prepared, 'he eats his own condemnation.' This is the strongest thing that we can say and what is the most truthful statement."
This line is not only coming from Pope Benedict and his appointees, however. The Cardinal who preceded Cardinal Canizares in heading the Congregation was Nigerian-born Cardinal Francis Arinze.

Already in 2004, Cardinal Arinze said a pro-abortion politician "is not fit" to receive Communion. "If they should not receive, then they should not be given," he added. Cardinal Arinze was asked the question so frequently he began to joke about the matter. One such question and answer session even made it to youtube.
Arinze is seen on the video as saying that he is regularly asked if a person who votes for abortion can receive Holy Communion. He replies, "Do you really need a cardinal from the Vatican to answer that? Get the children for first Communion and say to them, 'Somebody votes for the killing of unborn babies, and says, I voted for that, I will vote for that every time.' And these babies are killed not one or two, but in millions, and that person says, 'I'm a practicing Catholic', should that person receive Communion next Sunday? The children will answer that at the drop of a hat. You don't need a cardinal to answer that."
Former St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke who has been appointed to head up the highest court in the Vatican remarked on the need for bishops to uphold this canon since without doing so they undermine belief in the truth of the evil of abortion.
"No matter how often a bishop or priest repeats the teaching of the Church regarding procured abortion, if he stands by and does nothing to discipline a Catholic who publicly supports legislation permitting the gravest of injustices and, at the same time, presents himself to receive Holy Communion, then his teaching rings hollow," wrote Burke. "To remain silent is to permit serious confusion regarding a fundamental truth of the moral law."

accidentally got pregnant womens thoughts......!!!!

2009-11-27T21:19:00.001+05:30

I just wanted to write you to let you know how great it really is to see someone out there trying to make a difference. People so often overlook this issue...they make it out to be no big deal. I am sure you get so many messages like mine, but you know, I used to be one of the "neutrals." I knew it was wrong, but I thought that it was not my business what other people did. I guess this is my story... lame or not...

In June, I accidentally got pregnant. The guy I was dating, of two years almost, was a very godly, upright man. He was 24. I was 19. His entire family thought he was the greatest person in the world. He is now in the process of becoming a youth minister at his church. Whenever he found out that I was pregnant, he insisted that I have an abortion. A "man of God" who preached to me my faults day in and day out, wanted me to get an abortion! Why? Because he was not ready to be a father. It would have inconvenienced his life, simply because he was not ready to face the consequences of his lustful actions. Never really siding one way or another with abortion had come to an end for me. I knew that there was a child, a living being, inside of me, and for the first time I actually accepted the fact that abortion WAS murder.

I was debating the abortion, because my boyfriend kept pressuring and pressuring me to do it. My point of realization came when I went to the doctor for the first ultrasound, and saw my child inside of me. Whenever I heard his heartbeat booming, I knew right then and there that I could never have killed this child, nor would I do it now.
At such an early stage in my pregnancy, you could make out his body. I could see him! He was living inside of me. Seeing him on that monitor was the most heart-warming and loving feeling I have ever experienced. I had never felt more complete in my life than I did at that moment.

It is just amazing to me how selfish people can be. I refused to have an abortion. Unfortunately, I had a miscarriage and lost the child a couple of months into the pregnancy. If I had not lost the child, I would have proudly had that baby, without any aid from my ex-boyfriend, and I would have gladly taken the heat from my family..all of that for the baby. That experience made me realize that we as people should not have a choice when it is a choice to kill another human being. That would be like choosing to kill your four-year-old daughter or son...merely because they are an inconveinence to you. That would never be accepted in today's world...so why should abortion? If you can't kill a living, breathing, walking person, what gives you the right to kill a living child simply because they are still developing in your womb?

Sorry, I just felt compelled to give you my story. It is so weird to think I was ever even remotely okay with the idea of abortion. I have definitely stepped up and made my opinions known ever since that day...and I thank God for that experience. As hard as it was to lose a child, it has forever changed my life and view on the creation of life.

Thank you, and God Bless you for everything you are doing and have already done.

Cheryl, Arkansas

Poll: Large Majority of Canadians Favor Abortion Limits

2009-11-27T21:13:00.000+05:30

For the ninth year in a row, a majority of Canadians have rejected the status quo on abortion in this country, according to a new poll. Over half of respondents to the poll said there should be legal protection for human life before birth and over two-thirds say abortions should only be paid for by taxpayers in medical emergencies or in cases of rape or incest. A poll by Environics Research of 2002 Canadians found that only one-third of Canadians agree with the current policy that denies any protection to unborn babies before birth. The majority, 56%, support legal protection at some stage before birth: 30% support legal protection from conception on, 17% after three months of pregnancy and 8% after six months of pregnancy. Once again, support for legal protection from conception on is much higher among women, 35%, than men at 25%.

The disconnect between official policy and the opinions of Canadians is even more stark in the area of abortion funding. Most abortions in Canada, which now total well over 100,000 annually, are paid for by taxpayers through the publicly funded health care system. Yet when asked, 68% of Canadians polled said that abortions should be either privately funded (18%) or only tax-funded in cases of medical emergency "such as a threat to the mother's life or in cases of rape or incest." Only 26% support tax-funding of all abortions, down from 30% last year.
"With all the financial pressures on our health care system right across this country, it is ludicrous that our governments continue to pay tens of millions of dollars for a procedure which is seldom done for medical reasons," said pediatrician, Dr. Delores Doherty, president of LifeCanada, which commissioned the poll. "This is especially true when a majority of Canadians think unborn babies should be protected, not destroyed."
The poll was conducted in October 2009 on 2002 Canadians. The margin of error is 2.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Young Pro-life Women Become a Voice for the Voiceless

2009-11-26T22:20:00.001+05:30

I am pro-life for many reasons. First of all, abortion is the killing of a growing human baby. It just happens to be unborn and in the mother's womb until nine months are up. Pro-abortionists always say it's just a blob of tissue and that it doesn't feel anything. Well, they even call it a blob of tissue even when it has a skull (head), a brain, a heart, fingers, toes, arms, legs, etc. They don't realize that it's not just tissue! The unborn baby does indeed feel pain, as was scientifically proven, even though pro-abortionists say that's not right.

Another reason I'm pro-life is because I don't like to see any baby, born or unborn, hurt. He or she is still a life, a precious life, that is not yours to take. It's up to God to decide if and when that baby dies. Killing your baby isn't a choice like most people think. Yeah, they call it a choice because it's legal and it lives in their body for nine months, but why destroy it? That life was made for a purpose--to live, not to die. When women abort, they're trapped in a world of lies and deceit. They have nowhere else to go but down. Whether it's the boyfriend who made the choice, her own mother's, or the family of the mother's, they don't realize what they're going to do will affect them in some way. Most people regret their decision to abort, while some don't. Is their decision not regretable to them because they feel no love for their unborn? Or is it because they feel it just was the right choice they made for their own unborn? We'll never know.

The only way we can stop abortion is by getting everyone to vote against it and see what they're aborting is more than just tissue and cells. Most pro-choicers feel that it is just a blob of tissue because it's "not fully human yet." We're all made of tissue and cells, and more, so does that make the unborn any less human? Care to check an ultrasound? Pro-life is a great road to take. We're for saving the precious unborn lives, while others are for destroying it.

Ashley, Illinois

On procured abortion - Clarification from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

2009-11-26T22:16:00.001+05:30

Recently a number of letters have been sent to the Holy See, some of them from prominent figures in political and ecclesial life, explaining the confusion that has been created in various countries, especially in Latin America, following the manipulation and exploitation of an article by His Excellency Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, on the sad affair of the "Brazilian girl."
In this article, which appeared in "L'Osservatore Romano" on March 15, 2009, the doctrine of the Church was presented, while still keeping in mind the dramatic situation of the aforementioned girl, who - as could be demonstrated afterward - had been accompanied with all pastoral delicacy, in particular by the archbishop of Olinda and Recife at the time, His Excellency Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho.
In this regard, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reiterates that the Church's teaching on procured abortion has not changed, nor can it change.
This teaching has been presented in numbers 2270-2273 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in these terms:
«Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you” (Jer. 1:5). “My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth” (Psalm 139:15).
«Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish” (Didaché, 2:2). “God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes” (Vatican Council II, "Gaudium et Spes", 51).
«Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," (Code of Canon Law, can. 1398), “by the very commission of the offense” (Code of Canon Law, can. 1314) and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law (cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1323-1324). The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
«The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation: "The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death... The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined... As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction "Donum Vitae", III)».
In the encyclical "Evangelium Vitae," Pope John Paul II reaffirmed this teaching with his authority as Supreme Pastor of the Church:
«By the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church» (no. 62).
As for abortion procured in certain difficult and complex situations, the clear and precise teaching of Pope John Paul II applies:
«It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain important values such as her own health or a decent standard of living for the other members of the family. Sometimes it is feared that the child to be born would live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not take place. Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being» (Encyclical "Evangelium Vitae", no. 58).
As for the problem of specific medical treatments intended to preserve the health of the mother, it is necessary to make a strong distinction between two different situations: on the one hand, a procedure that directly causes the death of the fetus, sometimes inappropriately called "therapeutic" abortion, which can never be licit in that it is the direct killing of an innocent human being; on the other hand, a procedure not abortive in itself that can have, as a collateral consequence, the death of the child:
«If, for example, saving the life of the future mother, independently of her condition of pregnancy, urgently required a surgical procedure or another therapeutic application, which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired or intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an action could not be called a direct attack on the innocent life. In these conditions, the operation can be considered licit, as can other similar medical procedures, always provided that a good of high value, like life, is at stake, and that it is not possible to postpone it until after the birth of the child, or to use any other effective remedy» (Pius XII, Speech to the Fronte della Famiglia and the Associazione Famiglie numerose, November 27, 1951).
As for the responsibility of medical workers, the words of Pope John Paul II must be recalled:
«Their profession calls for them to be guardians and servants of human life. In today's cultural and social context, in which science and the practice of medicine risk losing sight of their inherent ethical dimension, health-care professionals can be strongly tempted at times to become manipulators of life, or even agents of death. In the face of this temptation their responsibility today is greatly increased. Its deepest inspiration and strongest support lie in the intrinsic and undeniable ethical dimension of the health-care profession, something already recognized by the ancient and still relevant Hippocratic Oath, which requires every doctor to commit himself to absolute respect for human life and its sacredness» (Encyclical "Evangelium Vitae", no. 89).

I feel that abortion is wrong!!!

2009-11-25T21:43:00.000+05:30

I feel that abortion is wrong because it is the mother and father's fault for not keeping what they were doing safe. Why do they think that they can erase that "mistake" and make it right? You cannot "right" a wrong by killing a human being. It was their choice to do that kind of stuff, but do people ever think about what they really are doing? They are killing their own baby! What kind of person does this? I know if I were pregnant I would never think of an abortion. Yes, I realize these kids may be 16 or 17, but it was their choice, and they know the concequences, so why let them get away with murder? They will not learn--it is giving them more of a chance to do it all over again.

Kristina, Florida

Pregnant & Considering Adoption?

2009-11-25T21:37:00.000+05:30

If you are pregnant and considering placing your baby for adoption, Parent Profiles, a service of Adoption Profiles, LLC gives you the opportunity to become familiar with hundreds of couples hoping to adopt a child.

You can contact, by e-mail or phone, the couples that seem to best meet the qualifications and characteristics you would want for parents of your child. Through communication with couples, you can establish relationships and become better acquainted giving you the opportunity to make an informed decision about what couple would love and parent your child like you would want.

ParentProfiles.com Benefits:

* Each couple on the site has completed the pre-adoption requirements in their state or country.
* All couples on the site have a current adoption homestudy.
* You can read about adopting couples at your convenience and in the privacy of your home, work or school.
* You can e-mail couples to find out more about them and form relationships with the ones you select as potential parents for your child.
* You can search for parents based on state, ethnicity, religion, and other important factors to you.
Important Information:

* Make an adoption plan and continue to use it. Keep in touch with the adopting couple you have selected. Participate in making your relationship with them strong and lasting so after your baby is born and adopted you will still be in touch.
* AFTER you have selected adoptive parents, visit chat rooms and message boards such as AdoptionForums.com to get more information and support from others who are experiencing the same feelings and questions as you.
* BE CAUTIOUS about individuals who solicit for the adoption of your child. For your safety, we recommend you DO NOT select adoptive couples from online chat rooms or message boards.

Important Note
Adoption laws vary from state to state and because of conflicting laws not all prospective parents can be listed on this service.

Quote of the Day 22-11-2009

2009-11-22T08:42:00.000+05:30

"America you are beautiful . . . and blessed . . . . The ultimate test of your greatness is the way you treat every human being, but especially the weakest and most defenseless. If you want equal justice for all and true freedom and lasting peace, then America, defend life."

- Pope John Paul II

Medical Science Proves Abortion Is Killing of Human Beings - Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video

2009-11-21T10:16:00.002+05:30

Medical Science Proves Abortion Is Killing of Human Beings. Original film from rosaryfilms entitled: "Is This A Human Being?". Medical Science Supports Pro-Lifers. Images provided by babypremier

Human Development 1/4

2009-11-21T10:10:00.002+05:30