Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Thursday, August 01, 2013
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
20 Week Abortion Ban Is Not Extreme
From: The Weekly Standard
The American left loves Western European democracies for their cultural sensibilities and for their policies on everything from crime to health care. One policy area where you won’t hear American liberals cite the European example, though, is abortion.
The reason is simple: Abortion law is far more restrictive in Europe than in the United States. As the table below shows, 16 of 18 countries on the continent limit abortion to the first trimester of pregnancy (with certain exceptions in various countries). The banning of late-term abortions now being considered in the House of Representatives and some American states would seem only civilized to most Europeans.
Not to U.S. liberals, who call “extremism” the attempt by some in Congress to promote a bill banning abortions after 22 weeks. A similar bill in Texas is “a sweeping assault on women’s rights,” in the words of the Nation. Yet even these bills—in the unlikely event they became laws—would be among the most permissive in the Western world.
Indeed, only Canada, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands would have more permissive laws. Even anti-Catholic France bans abortion at 12 weeks, nearly 3 whole months before the gestational limit in the House bill. By international standards, Republican efforts to ban late abortions are anything but conservative—they are fringe left.
Source: Phillip B. Levine, Sex and Consequences: Abortion, Public Policy, and the Economics of Fertility (Princeton University Press, 2007), 135-139.
Monday, June 10, 2013
IRS Caught on Tape Telling Nonprofit: “Keep Your Faith to Yourself”
FRom: Life News
The IRS scandal is deepening as a new tape has been released today showing a disturbing phone call the Internal Revenue Service placed to a non-profit organization.
Alliance Defending Freedom, a pro-life legal group, made the audio available today of IRS officials telling a group that provides support to women in abusive pregnancy situations to keep its faith to itself. In the recorded phone conversation, an IRS agent lectures the president of the organization about forcing its religion and beliefs on others and inaccurately explains that the group must remain neutral on issues such as abortion.
ADF is providing legal representation for the group — which did not receive its tax-exempt status until last week after waiting nearly two and a half years after applying for it.
“The IRS is a tax collector; it shouldn’t be allowed to be the speech and belief police,” said Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. “The current scandal isn’t new but has merely exposed the abuse of power that characterizes this agency and threatens our fundamental freedoms.”
ADF tells LifeNews that, in January 2011, Pro-Life Revolution, which operates from Texas under all three purposes for whcih religious groups can obtain nonprofit status, filed an application for tax-exempt status with the IRS. Four months later, the IRS sent a letter requesting “more information” and an explanation of how the organization’s activities are educational or charitable even though IRS rules specify that an organization need only operate for “one or more” of the three exempt purposes.
President of Pro-Life Revolution Ania Joseph nonetheless replied and answered the IRS’s questions.
ADF indicates Joseph received a call from IRS Exempt Organization Specialist Sherry Wan in March 2012.
Wan told her that, in order to obtain a tax exemption, “You cannot force your religion or force your beliefs on somebody else…. You have to know your boundaries. You have to know your limits. You have to respect other people’s beliefs.”
In February of this year, the IRS requested additional information in another letter and attempted to apply a standard for tax exemption to Pro-Life Revolution that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held to be unconstitutional in 1980. Alliance Defending Freedom pointed this out in a letter responding to the IRS, which finally granted tax-exempt status to the organization in a letter received Thursday.
“The power to tax is the power to destroy,” added Stanley. “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We cannot allow the IRS to ruthlessly dictate against legitimate non-profits simply because it does not approve of the organization’s mission. It must be held accountable.”
“The IRS has approved applications for tax exemption for pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood and Life and Liberty for Women,” ADF said.
The IRS scandal is deepening as a new tape has been released today showing a disturbing phone call the Internal Revenue Service placed to a non-profit organization.
Alliance Defending Freedom, a pro-life legal group, made the audio available today of IRS officials telling a group that provides support to women in abusive pregnancy situations to keep its faith to itself. In the recorded phone conversation, an IRS agent lectures the president of the organization about forcing its religion and beliefs on others and inaccurately explains that the group must remain neutral on issues such as abortion.
ADF is providing legal representation for the group — which did not receive its tax-exempt status until last week after waiting nearly two and a half years after applying for it.
“The IRS is a tax collector; it shouldn’t be allowed to be the speech and belief police,” said Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. “The current scandal isn’t new but has merely exposed the abuse of power that characterizes this agency and threatens our fundamental freedoms.”
ADF tells LifeNews that, in January 2011, Pro-Life Revolution, which operates from Texas under all three purposes for whcih religious groups can obtain nonprofit status, filed an application for tax-exempt status with the IRS. Four months later, the IRS sent a letter requesting “more information” and an explanation of how the organization’s activities are educational or charitable even though IRS rules specify that an organization need only operate for “one or more” of the three exempt purposes.
President of Pro-Life Revolution Ania Joseph nonetheless replied and answered the IRS’s questions.
ADF indicates Joseph received a call from IRS Exempt Organization Specialist Sherry Wan in March 2012.
Wan told her that, in order to obtain a tax exemption, “You cannot force your religion or force your beliefs on somebody else…. You have to know your boundaries. You have to know your limits. You have to respect other people’s beliefs.”
In February of this year, the IRS requested additional information in another letter and attempted to apply a standard for tax exemption to Pro-Life Revolution that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held to be unconstitutional in 1980. Alliance Defending Freedom pointed this out in a letter responding to the IRS, which finally granted tax-exempt status to the organization in a letter received Thursday.
“The power to tax is the power to destroy,” added Stanley. “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We cannot allow the IRS to ruthlessly dictate against legitimate non-profits simply because it does not approve of the organization’s mission. It must be held accountable.”
“The IRS has approved applications for tax exemption for pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood and Life and Liberty for Women,” ADF said.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Life Site News: Abortionist twisted heads off living babies, say nurses (Video)
From: LifeSiteNews.com
An abortionist who is now facing a criminal investigation would regularly allow late-term babies to be born alive, then twist their heads off with his bare hands, according to a videotaped interview conducted by three of his employees.
“Most of the time the fetus [sic] would come all the way out before he either cut the spinal cord or introduced one of the instruments into the soft-spot of the fetus in order to kill the fetus,” said Deborah Edge, one of the employees. “Either that or twisting the head off the neck with his own bare hands.”
“Most of the time we'd see...the fetus would come all the way out, and of course the fetus was still alive,” she said, adding that the doctor's assistants could see the newborns breathing.
The abortionist also suffocated babies by putting his finger down their windpipes, and placed living babies inside trash bags.
Life Dynamics, Inc., conducted an interview with three female employees of a late-term abortion facility on May 3. The employees' names were released, but the facility's location – and the abortionist's name – is being withheld because it is an ongoing investigation. Life Dynamics revealed only that the facility is not located in Pennsylvania.
The footage proves the murders perpetrated inside Kermit Gosnell's West Philadelphia "house of horrors" were anything but anomalous, the organization stated in a press release.
“I think every morning I saw several of them,” Edge said. Of 20 babies aborted in a day, three-to-four were “completely delivered” before being murdered.
One baby, whom the doctor believed had died, was born alive, opened its eyes, and clutched the abortionist's finger, as if to stop him.
Live births were common inside and outside his offices, the three women said.
Krystal Rodriguez said she witnessed another baby born alive on the facility's hallway floor. The abortionist “put it in a trash bag,” she said.
“On some occasions, we had women that were, the fetuses were falling into the toilet,” Edge said.
Once, a baby who was intended to be aborted in his office was delivered in a McDonald's toilet and left to die.
“They stopped there in the morning, and the fetus was left in the toilet,” Edge said. “No one ever found out whose fetus it was, but it was one of his patients. We knew it...she was supposed to be in the clinic.”
The doctor showed disregard for the patients' safety, as well. Rodriguez said the doctor would sometimes insert the instruments through the woman's stomach, if it was the easiest way to kill the baby.
Edge said she routinely observed the doctor “hurting patients on the table” and not telling victims of botched abortions that he had lacerated their cervixes or uteruses.
“If he had a patients that asked a lot of questions, he would prefer for them to be put to sleep,” said Gigi Aguilar, a third employee.
“The women who go there had no idea what they were getting themselves into,” Deborah said.
“During Gosnell’s trial, it became clear that organizations like Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Federation, and others within the pro-choice community were fully aware of what Gosnell was doing -- but they kept quiet because this was a rock they did not want the public looking under, said Mark Crutcher, who founded Life Dynamics in 1992. "What they knew, and wanted to keep hidden, was that everything being done at this abortion clinic was within the standard operating procedures for every other abortion clinic in the country."
As of the filming, the abortion facility remains open to the public.
An abortionist who is now facing a criminal investigation would regularly allow late-term babies to be born alive, then twist their heads off with his bare hands, according to a videotaped interview conducted by three of his employees.
“Most of the time the fetus [sic] would come all the way out before he either cut the spinal cord or introduced one of the instruments into the soft-spot of the fetus in order to kill the fetus,” said Deborah Edge, one of the employees. “Either that or twisting the head off the neck with his own bare hands.”
“Most of the time we'd see...the fetus would come all the way out, and of course the fetus was still alive,” she said, adding that the doctor's assistants could see the newborns breathing.
The abortionist also suffocated babies by putting his finger down their windpipes, and placed living babies inside trash bags.
Life Dynamics, Inc., conducted an interview with three female employees of a late-term abortion facility on May 3. The employees' names were released, but the facility's location – and the abortionist's name – is being withheld because it is an ongoing investigation. Life Dynamics revealed only that the facility is not located in Pennsylvania.
The footage proves the murders perpetrated inside Kermit Gosnell's West Philadelphia "house of horrors" were anything but anomalous, the organization stated in a press release.
“I think every morning I saw several of them,” Edge said. Of 20 babies aborted in a day, three-to-four were “completely delivered” before being murdered.
One baby, whom the doctor believed had died, was born alive, opened its eyes, and clutched the abortionist's finger, as if to stop him.
Live births were common inside and outside his offices, the three women said.
Krystal Rodriguez said she witnessed another baby born alive on the facility's hallway floor. The abortionist “put it in a trash bag,” she said.
“On some occasions, we had women that were, the fetuses were falling into the toilet,” Edge said.
Once, a baby who was intended to be aborted in his office was delivered in a McDonald's toilet and left to die.
“They stopped there in the morning, and the fetus was left in the toilet,” Edge said. “No one ever found out whose fetus it was, but it was one of his patients. We knew it...she was supposed to be in the clinic.”
The doctor showed disregard for the patients' safety, as well. Rodriguez said the doctor would sometimes insert the instruments through the woman's stomach, if it was the easiest way to kill the baby.
Edge said she routinely observed the doctor “hurting patients on the table” and not telling victims of botched abortions that he had lacerated their cervixes or uteruses.
“If he had a patients that asked a lot of questions, he would prefer for them to be put to sleep,” said Gigi Aguilar, a third employee.
“The women who go there had no idea what they were getting themselves into,” Deborah said.
“During Gosnell’s trial, it became clear that organizations like Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Federation, and others within the pro-choice community were fully aware of what Gosnell was doing -- but they kept quiet because this was a rock they did not want the public looking under, said Mark Crutcher, who founded Life Dynamics in 1992. "What they knew, and wanted to keep hidden, was that everything being done at this abortion clinic was within the standard operating procedures for every other abortion clinic in the country."
As of the filming, the abortion facility remains open to the public.
Thursday, May 02, 2013
Tuesday, April 09, 2013
The Anchoress: Baby Screaming After Gosnell Abortion: only of “local” interest
This article needs to be read.
From: The Anchoress
There is a saying in the news industry: “if it bleeds, it leads…”
But not always.
Perhaps the saying should be changed to, “if it bleeds and is politically expedient it leads, otherwise, it gets buried.
For instance, you might remember the story of Kermit Gosnell, the Pennsylvania abortionist who was charged with killing at least one women and multiple (perhaps hundreds) of late-term babies in his “practice. Gosnell performed late-term abortions, marveling once that a baby was “so big, he could walk with me to the bus” before he used scissors to snip its spinal cord. Sometimes, he would sever the feet to keep around the office, like trophies.
From: The Anchoress
There is a saying in the news industry: “if it bleeds, it leads…”
But not always.
Perhaps the saying should be changed to, “if it bleeds and is politically expedient it leads, otherwise, it gets buried.
For instance, you might remember the story of Kermit Gosnell, the Pennsylvania abortionist who was charged with killing at least one women and multiple (perhaps hundreds) of late-term babies in his “practice. Gosnell performed late-term abortions, marveling once that a baby was “so big, he could walk with me to the bus” before he used scissors to snip its spinal cord. Sometimes, he would sever the feet to keep around the office, like trophies.
Friday, April 05, 2013
Newtown and Gosnell: A tale of two massacres
From: WashingtonExaminer.com
You might not know it, but there's a mass murder trial going on in Philadelphia. There has been plenty of courtroom drama, and the death penalty remains a possibility.
The media are seldom shy about such sensational affairs, but they have been with one. Perhaps it's because the accused mass murderer is an abortion doctor, who along with his medically untrained staff is accused of killing a female patient and several babies who had already been born, alive and breathing.
Doctor Kermit Gosnell's preferred method of killing these latter, according to witnesses, was to sever their spinal cords. Upon his arrest in January 2011, his urine-scented and blood-soaked clinic was deemed a "house of horrors." (I will spare readers further details, which are far worse.)
This trial's gruesome revelations are emerging at almost the same time as new details about the loathsome and cowardly murderer who killed his own mother and then 26 others at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., late last year.
Some will find the comparison inappropriate, but from a political perspective, Gosnell's trial is to abortion what Sandy Hook is to gun ownership.
Both are emotional cases with horrific details that cry out for public policy debates. And in each case, the debate pits public safety against something widely considered a constitutional right.
The two cases are different in that Sandy Hook received wall-to-wall coverage and thus facilitated a national conversation about mental health and gun control -- a debate whose outcome is yet to be determined.
Not so with the Gosnell trial, which has been completely blacked out by the media. The American people are now like a jury, shielded from relevant information because judges (read: editors) decided it might prejudice their views -- in this case, against lightly regulated abortionists.
Whatever one's position on gun control, the appropriately heavy coverage of the Sandy Hook massacre at least served a public purpose by starting a discussion about mass shootings.
At its most thoughtful, the debate considered what measures might have prevented the massacre and which could be squared with Americans' constitutional rights.
At its worst, the debate suffered from media cheerleading for panic gun control legislation -- as in, "pass something, anything!" -- including but not limited to such left-leaning figures as CNN's Piers Morgan.
In stark contrast, television coverage of Gosnell's trial has been "hard to find," as the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan put it very charitably last Sunday on "Meet the Press."
In fact, not counting Noonan's allusion, Gosnell's case has not been mentioned even once on any of the three major networks in the last month (his trial began March 18).
It has received only seven mentions on cable television since it began, one on CNN and six on Fox News. In print, Gosnell's case has been largely ignored outside of local media outlets in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
It's not as though there isn't an obvious connection between the Gosnell case and public policy. Legislators in some states (including Pennsylvania and now Alabama) have acted since Gosnell's arrest to crack down on the next abortion quack.
The media have collectively and perhaps deliberately failed to draw the obvious connection between the two stories.
The month after Gosnell's arrest, Virginia's legislature approved new health and safety rules for abortion clinics on a nearly straight party-line vote in 2011.
Gov. Bob McDonnell, R, approved the new rules three months ago. Last week, amid Gosnell's trial, abortion rights groups unashamedly announced they had submitted thousands of comments in opposition. The state Board of Health is expected to hand down a final decision next week.
Many have asked what kind of law they could pass to prevent the next Newtown. Few are writing about how to prevent the next Kermit Gosnell.
Given the frequent claim that abortion is safer for being legal, and the eagerness of the abortion rights lobby to distance itself from Gosnell, why such incredible and inflexible resistance to basic safety regulations?
The gun lobby is often accused of resisting any new gun law as if it were the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. The liberal editors who are keeping Kermit Gosnell's case off the air should ask themselves whether they aren't taking sides in the culture war.
Or can public health, public safety and public debate be subordinated to the question of whose camel's nose is going under whose tent?
You might not know it, but there's a mass murder trial going on in Philadelphia. There has been plenty of courtroom drama, and the death penalty remains a possibility.
The media are seldom shy about such sensational affairs, but they have been with one. Perhaps it's because the accused mass murderer is an abortion doctor, who along with his medically untrained staff is accused of killing a female patient and several babies who had already been born, alive and breathing.
Doctor Kermit Gosnell's preferred method of killing these latter, according to witnesses, was to sever their spinal cords. Upon his arrest in January 2011, his urine-scented and blood-soaked clinic was deemed a "house of horrors." (I will spare readers further details, which are far worse.)
This trial's gruesome revelations are emerging at almost the same time as new details about the loathsome and cowardly murderer who killed his own mother and then 26 others at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., late last year.
Some will find the comparison inappropriate, but from a political perspective, Gosnell's trial is to abortion what Sandy Hook is to gun ownership.
Both are emotional cases with horrific details that cry out for public policy debates. And in each case, the debate pits public safety against something widely considered a constitutional right.
The two cases are different in that Sandy Hook received wall-to-wall coverage and thus facilitated a national conversation about mental health and gun control -- a debate whose outcome is yet to be determined.
Not so with the Gosnell trial, which has been completely blacked out by the media. The American people are now like a jury, shielded from relevant information because judges (read: editors) decided it might prejudice their views -- in this case, against lightly regulated abortionists.
Whatever one's position on gun control, the appropriately heavy coverage of the Sandy Hook massacre at least served a public purpose by starting a discussion about mass shootings.
At its most thoughtful, the debate considered what measures might have prevented the massacre and which could be squared with Americans' constitutional rights.
At its worst, the debate suffered from media cheerleading for panic gun control legislation -- as in, "pass something, anything!" -- including but not limited to such left-leaning figures as CNN's Piers Morgan.
In stark contrast, television coverage of Gosnell's trial has been "hard to find," as the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan put it very charitably last Sunday on "Meet the Press."
In fact, not counting Noonan's allusion, Gosnell's case has not been mentioned even once on any of the three major networks in the last month (his trial began March 18).
It has received only seven mentions on cable television since it began, one on CNN and six on Fox News. In print, Gosnell's case has been largely ignored outside of local media outlets in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
It's not as though there isn't an obvious connection between the Gosnell case and public policy. Legislators in some states (including Pennsylvania and now Alabama) have acted since Gosnell's arrest to crack down on the next abortion quack.
The media have collectively and perhaps deliberately failed to draw the obvious connection between the two stories.
The month after Gosnell's arrest, Virginia's legislature approved new health and safety rules for abortion clinics on a nearly straight party-line vote in 2011.
Gov. Bob McDonnell, R, approved the new rules three months ago. Last week, amid Gosnell's trial, abortion rights groups unashamedly announced they had submitted thousands of comments in opposition. The state Board of Health is expected to hand down a final decision next week.
Many have asked what kind of law they could pass to prevent the next Newtown. Few are writing about how to prevent the next Kermit Gosnell.
Given the frequent claim that abortion is safer for being legal, and the eagerness of the abortion rights lobby to distance itself from Gosnell, why such incredible and inflexible resistance to basic safety regulations?
The gun lobby is often accused of resisting any new gun law as if it were the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. The liberal editors who are keeping Kermit Gosnell's case off the air should ask themselves whether they aren't taking sides in the culture war.
Or can public health, public safety and public debate be subordinated to the question of whose camel's nose is going under whose tent?
Friday, March 29, 2013
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Biden, Pelosi take communion despite threatened backlash
From: Politico
Vice President Joe Biden and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, both strong pro-choice advocates, took communion during the papal mass Tuesday in Rome, according to a pool report.
The move could potentially reignite a passionate debate about the propriety of participating in the ritual without fully abiding the Catholic Church's teachings.
Pope Francis has said he is clearly against the practice, particularly by pro-choice politicians.
"We must adhere to ‘eucharistic coherence’, that is, be conscious that they cannot receive holy communion and at the same time act with deeds or words against the commandments, particularly when abortion, euthanasia, and other grave crimes against life and family are encouraged," he wrote in 2007. "This responsibility applies particularly to legislators, governors, and health professionals."
Priests for Life, a U.S.-based Catholic anti-abortion organization, told the Huffington Post on Monday that there would be a "public uproar" if Biden and Pelosi took communion.
"Vice President Biden and Nancy Pelosi should certainly not receive Communion, either at the papal installation or anywhere else. Communion means ‘union,’ and they are not in union with the Church on the most fundamental moral issue of the right to life,” founder the Rev. Frank Pavone said. "Should they receive at this ceremony, there will be a public uproar, and rightly so."
A spokeswoman for Biden declined to comment. A spokesman for Pelosi did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
UPDATE (Wednesday 2 p.m.): Pavone emails this statement to POLITICO: “At a Mass during which our new Pope emphasized the duty public officials – and all the rest of us – have to protect the weakest among us, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi have the audacity to receive Communion while publicly renouncing their responsibility to protect the weakest among us.
“Some Church leaders mistakenly think we are advocating the use of the Eucharist as a ‘weapon.’ In fact, we are defending the Eucharist from being used as a political tool. These politicians have no respect for what the Eucharist means: an integral, consistent union with Christ and with all our brothers and sisters. To receive Christ while rejecting the unborn is a slap in the face to both.”
Vice President Joe Biden and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, both strong pro-choice advocates, took communion during the papal mass Tuesday in Rome, according to a pool report.
The move could potentially reignite a passionate debate about the propriety of participating in the ritual without fully abiding the Catholic Church's teachings.
Pope Francis has said he is clearly against the practice, particularly by pro-choice politicians.
"We must adhere to ‘eucharistic coherence’, that is, be conscious that they cannot receive holy communion and at the same time act with deeds or words against the commandments, particularly when abortion, euthanasia, and other grave crimes against life and family are encouraged," he wrote in 2007. "This responsibility applies particularly to legislators, governors, and health professionals."
Priests for Life, a U.S.-based Catholic anti-abortion organization, told the Huffington Post on Monday that there would be a "public uproar" if Biden and Pelosi took communion.
"Vice President Biden and Nancy Pelosi should certainly not receive Communion, either at the papal installation or anywhere else. Communion means ‘union,’ and they are not in union with the Church on the most fundamental moral issue of the right to life,” founder the Rev. Frank Pavone said. "Should they receive at this ceremony, there will be a public uproar, and rightly so."
A spokeswoman for Biden declined to comment. A spokesman for Pelosi did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
UPDATE (Wednesday 2 p.m.): Pavone emails this statement to POLITICO: “At a Mass during which our new Pope emphasized the duty public officials – and all the rest of us – have to protect the weakest among us, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi have the audacity to receive Communion while publicly renouncing their responsibility to protect the weakest among us.
“Some Church leaders mistakenly think we are advocating the use of the Eucharist as a ‘weapon.’ In fact, we are defending the Eucharist from being used as a political tool. These politicians have no respect for what the Eucharist means: an integral, consistent union with Christ and with all our brothers and sisters. To receive Christ while rejecting the unborn is a slap in the face to both.”
Wednesday, March 06, 2013
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Pope’s last addresses call on Catholics to stay strong on marriage, abortion, eugenics, euthanasia
From: LifeSiteNews.com
It was an emotional day at the Vatican as Pope Benedict XVI, in two of his last public addresses, called again on Christians to continue to defend the lives of innocent unborn and vulnerable people and to uphold the sanctity of natural marriage. In this morning’s regular Wednesday general audience he warned that Christians will face great pressure to give up their commitments.
“Even those who come from a Christian family … must renew daily their decision to be Christian, to give God the first place in the face of the temptations continuously suggested by a secularized culture, in the face of the criticism of many of their contemporaries.”
But this must not deter them from proclaiming the truth: “The temptation to set one’s faith aside is always present and conversion becomes a response to God that must be confirmed at various times throughout our lives,” he said.
“It is not easy to be faithful to Christian marriage, to practice mercy in our everyday lives, or to leave space for prayer and inner silence.
“It is not easy to publicly oppose the decisions that many consider to be obvious, such as abortion in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, euthanasia in the case of serious illness, or the selection of embryos to avoid hereditary diseases.”
The tone of the Ash Wednesday homily was sombre, befitting the occasion of both the first day of Lent and the mood of Catholics around the world at Pope Benedict’s almost unprecedented and shocking revelation on Monday. In the homily, he warned ominously against divisions and “sins against the unity of the Church”.
He referred to “the prayers of priests, who, with tears in their eyes,” pray to God, asking, “Spare your people, Lord! Do not let your heritage become a disgrace, a byword among the nations! Why should they say among the peoples, ‘Where is their God?’”
“This prayer leads us to reflect on the importance of witnessing to faith and Christian life, for each of us and our community, so that we can reveal the face of the Church and how this face is, at times, disfigured,” the pope said.
“I am thinking in particular of the sins against the unity of the Church, of the divisions in the body of the Church.”
He called upon those listening to live Lent “in a more intense and evident ecclesial communion, overcoming individualism and rivalry is a humble and precious sign for those who have distanced themselves from the faith or who are indifferent.”
Towards the end of the Mass, the pope stood quietly while prolonged applause erupted spontaneously from the crowd. One observer present said that although the tone of the Mass was deeply reverent, “as all papal Masses have been under this pope, it was simply impossible to stop people pouring out their affection and deep sorrow at his impending departure from the throne of Peter.”
It was an emotional day at the Vatican as Pope Benedict XVI, in two of his last public addresses, called again on Christians to continue to defend the lives of innocent unborn and vulnerable people and to uphold the sanctity of natural marriage. In this morning’s regular Wednesday general audience he warned that Christians will face great pressure to give up their commitments.
“Even those who come from a Christian family … must renew daily their decision to be Christian, to give God the first place in the face of the temptations continuously suggested by a secularized culture, in the face of the criticism of many of their contemporaries.”
“It is not easy to be faithful to Christian marriage, to practice mercy in our everyday lives, or to leave space for prayer and inner silence.
“It is not easy to publicly oppose the decisions that many consider to be obvious, such as abortion in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, euthanasia in the case of serious illness, or the selection of embryos to avoid hereditary diseases.”
The tone of the Ash Wednesday homily was sombre, befitting the occasion of both the first day of Lent and the mood of Catholics around the world at Pope Benedict’s almost unprecedented and shocking revelation on Monday. In the homily, he warned ominously against divisions and “sins against the unity of the Church”.
He referred to “the prayers of priests, who, with tears in their eyes,” pray to God, asking, “Spare your people, Lord! Do not let your heritage become a disgrace, a byword among the nations! Why should they say among the peoples, ‘Where is their God?’”
“This prayer leads us to reflect on the importance of witnessing to faith and Christian life, for each of us and our community, so that we can reveal the face of the Church and how this face is, at times, disfigured,” the pope said.
“I am thinking in particular of the sins against the unity of the Church, of the divisions in the body of the Church.”
He called upon those listening to live Lent “in a more intense and evident ecclesial communion, overcoming individualism and rivalry is a humble and precious sign for those who have distanced themselves from the faith or who are indifferent.”
Towards the end of the Mass, the pope stood quietly while prolonged applause erupted spontaneously from the crowd. One observer present said that although the tone of the Mass was deeply reverent, “as all papal Masses have been under this pope, it was simply impossible to stop people pouring out their affection and deep sorrow at his impending departure from the throne of Peter.”
Monday, February 04, 2013
HHS Mandate Revisions Will Force Religious Groups to Cover Abortions
From: LifeNews.com
On Friday, the Obama administration released proposed revisions to the controversial HHS mandate. The revisions offer no help for religious businesses, individuals or non-profit religious groups that don’t want to be forced to obey it.
A leading pro-life source on Capitol Hill provided an analysis to LifeNews about how the proposals play out.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued the notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the requirement that all insurance plans cover “all Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.”
The proposed rule is being issued in response to the many faith-based institutions and religious business owners that continue to object to this mandate on grounds that it forces them to violate their deeply held religious or moral objections to some or all such coverage – especially coverage that includes the morning-after pill (Plan B) or week-after pill (ella) that causes abortions.
“The proposed rule is open for comment until April 5, 2013. However, it is extremely similar to proposals rejected by pro-life leaders in the past,” the source told LifeNews.
The proposed rule would:
On Friday, the Obama administration released proposed revisions to the controversial HHS mandate. The revisions offer no help for religious businesses, individuals or non-profit religious groups that don’t want to be forced to obey it.
A leading pro-life source on Capitol Hill provided an analysis to LifeNews about how the proposals play out.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued the notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the requirement that all insurance plans cover “all Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.”
The proposed rule is being issued in response to the many faith-based institutions and religious business owners that continue to object to this mandate on grounds that it forces them to violate their deeply held religious or moral objections to some or all such coverage – especially coverage that includes the morning-after pill (Plan B) or week-after pill (ella) that causes abortions.
“The proposed rule is open for comment until April 5, 2013. However, it is extremely similar to proposals rejected by pro-life leaders in the past,” the source told LifeNews.
The proposed rule would:
- · Have NO impact on businesses run by people of faith, such as Tyndale House (a publisher of the Bible), Hobby Lobby and Hercules Industries. (If you would like fact sheets and background on each of the businesses that have filed suits against the mandate, please feel free to contact me or Allison Hines).
- · Provide NO options for individuals seeking plans that accommodate their values on the exchanges.
- · Continue to only apply the full exemption to churches and their auxiliary institutions. It appears that this narrow exemption will NOT apply to nonprofits like the University of Notre Dame, Wheaton College and Catholic Charities. Note: the exemption is modified so that it no longer specifies that churches must have inculcation of religious values as their purpose and primarily employ and serve people of their same faith. Even though those specifics are no longer listed, the exemption continues to apply only to a small category of entities (Churches, Integrated Auxiliaries, and Conventions or Associations of Churches).
- · Non-profit religious organizations will have to involuntarily comply with the mandate through a series of new requirements on insurance companies and third party administrators(in the case of self-insured plans). HHS refers to this as an accommodation, and will only make it available to a nonprofit entity that “holds itself out as a religious organization.” The arrangement will work as follows:
- o Fully Insured Plans–In the case of a non-profit religious organization that indicates it opposes providing all or part of the mandated coverage, their insurance company will provide the coverage to the covered employees anyway through a “seamless process” under the justification that the coverage is actually free because it will reduce labor and delivery costs in the long run.
- o Self-Insured Plans–In the case of a self-insured plan, the third party administrator will contract with another insurance company to provide the coverage, and the insurance company will be compensated by paying less in “Federally-facilitated Exchange user fees.”
Another leading source explained to LifeNews further about the mandate revisions.
The source said, “Due to a misleading press release from HHS and other factors, some media and others have thought that HHS has now substantially expanded its “religious employer” exemption from the mandate. They note that the old four-prong test for qualifying as a “religious employer” has now been reduced to just one prongs.”
“The Departments believe that this proposal would not expand the universe of employer plans that would qualify for the exemption beyond that which was intended in the 2012 final rules. As previously noted, when the Departments first defined religious employer, the primary goal was to exempt the group health plans of houses of worship. Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii) of the Code refers to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order. By restricting the exemption primarily to group health plans established or maintained by churches, synagogues, mosques, and other houses of worship, and religious orders, the fourth prong of the current definition of religious employer would alone suffice to meet the goal.”
The pro-life source added, “So HHS dropped the other three prongs of the four-prong definition because it doesn’t need them. This one prong alone does roughly the same job.”
The changes are drawing strong condemnation from pro-life groups like Americans United for Life.
“With another phony compromise, the Obama Administration continues to insult the intelligence of the American people and trample our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights,” said AUL’s President Charmaine Yoest. “Our Freedom of Conscience, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment has been violated by Obamacare and these new regulations do not resolve the offense.”
“The phony compromise from Health and Human Services only serves to illustrate the problem with Obamacare,” said Dr. Yoest. “The Obama Administration is trying to gerrymander the regulations but continues to leave most Americans without their Constitutional freedoms. The regulation is clear that the Obama Administration’s intent is to limit religious liberty to houses of worship. Meanwhile Christian universities, for-profit businesses – like the Bible publisher Tyndale and Hobby Lobby – or individuals are still forced to subsidize Big Abortion. The Obama Administration’s implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) violates the First Amendment Conscience rights of Americans, and that must be stopped.”
Friday, January 25, 2013
Salon Article Says Unborn Baby is "A Life Worth Sacrificing"
From: LifeNews.com
A new article from a writer at the liberal online publication Salon is one of the most extreme pro-abortion diatribes ever written. It is so in-your-face that it is already sending shockwaves through the Internet just hours after its publication.
The content of the article, some of which is excerpted below, needs no words to show how shocking the content is from Mary Elizabeth Williams, who starts her piece saying, “So what if abortion ends a life?”
“I believe that life starts at conception. And it’s never stopped me from being pro-choice,” she writes.
A new article from a writer at the liberal online publication Salon is one of the most extreme pro-abortion diatribes ever written. It is so in-your-face that it is already sending shockwaves through the Internet just hours after its publication.
The content of the article, some of which is excerpted below, needs no words to show how shocking the content is from Mary Elizabeth Williams, who starts her piece saying, “So what if abortion ends a life?”
“I believe that life starts at conception. And it’s never stopped me from being pro-choice,” she writes.
Of all the diabolically clever moves the anti-choice lobby has ever pulled, surely one of the greatest has been its consistent co-opting of the word “life.” Life! Who wants to argue with that? Who wants be on the side of … not-life? That’s why the language of those who support abortion has for so long been carefully couched in other terms. While opponents of abortion eagerly describe themselves as “pro-life,” the rest of have had to scramble around with not nearly as big-ticket words like “choice” and “reproductive freedom.” The “life” conversation is often too a thorny one to even broach. Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice.
Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Todd Akin: What A Dumbass
If you haven't seen this short clip, then you're just not paying attention. Todd Akin, our newly minted Senate candidate from Missouri just made beating Claire McCaskill a little bit harder. Until today, Todd Akin could have spent the rest of the cycle in the Bahamas and still beaten McCaskill, but NOOOOOOOOOO, this nitwit makes some DUMBASS comments about rape. RAPE!
It reminds me of the episode of "Frasier" when Frasier holds a successful fundraiser for a candidate and upon completion the candidate tells the tale about the time he was abducted by aliens. The look on Kelsey Grammer's face was priceless. Todd Akin could've recovered if he'd told the tale of an alien anal probe. He could've said he was joking. But there's no walking back this crap.
It is terribly annoying to agree with someone on the checklist of issues only to find they've got their head up their ass. Do you think Claire McCaskill will get full campaign coffers off of this? Even if he does win, can we be proud of this?
It reminds me of the episode of "Frasier" when Frasier holds a successful fundraiser for a candidate and upon completion the candidate tells the tale about the time he was abducted by aliens. The look on Kelsey Grammer's face was priceless. Todd Akin could've recovered if he'd told the tale of an alien anal probe. He could've said he was joking. But there's no walking back this crap.
It is terribly annoying to agree with someone on the checklist of issues only to find they've got their head up their ass. Do you think Claire McCaskill will get full campaign coffers off of this? Even if he does win, can we be proud of this?
Friday, August 10, 2012
African American Organizations Silent on Killing "Ugly Black Babies" Comment by Abortion Doctor
Life News.com has a great article exposing the hypocrisy of Civil Rights organizations and their silence regarding statements made by abortion doctor Ashutosh Ron Virmani that he is ridding the world of "ugly black babies" and doing so prevents future shootings like the one in Colorado.As racist as it gets.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Obama’s FBI is gathering intelligence on the pro-life movement?
From: LifeSiteNews.com
The federal government appears to be making a concerted effort to to gain intelligence on the pro-life movement, according to some of the movement’s most prominent leaders.
Jill Stanek has revealed that on July 13, FBI agents Conrad Rodriguez and William Sivley paid a visit to her son-in-law, Andy Moore, reportedly pressuring him to expose the inner workings of the right-to-life movement and making veiled threats to separate him from his wife and family through imprisonment or deportation.
The feds questioned Moore after the Southwest Women’s Surgery Center, a Dallas abortion clinic, complained that Moore used a bullhorn on one occasion during a peaceful protest. Upon learning this violated a local noise ordinance, Moore stopped using the bullhorn.
The abortion mill also claimed Moore was “too aggressive” and had trespassed on its property – something Moore denies and which he says the clinic made no attempt to prove.
Stanek wrote that the agents – who said their department also investigates hate crimes such as those committed by white supremacists – asked “inappropriate questions clearly aimed at intimidating Andy, while also launching into a fishing expedition about me.” Agents reportedly asked her son-in-law whether Stanek had inspired his activism, whether she trained him, and if he got his ideas from her.
They also asked, “What affiliations do you have including church groups?”
Stanek said the agents were most interested in getting him to name other pro-lifers who he believes are overly “abrasive or aggressive.”
The federal government appears to be making a concerted effort to to gain intelligence on the pro-life movement, according to some of the movement’s most prominent leaders.
Jill Stanek has revealed that on July 13, FBI agents Conrad Rodriguez and William Sivley paid a visit to her son-in-law, Andy Moore, reportedly pressuring him to expose the inner workings of the right-to-life movement and making veiled threats to separate him from his wife and family through imprisonment or deportation.
The feds questioned Moore after the Southwest Women’s Surgery Center, a Dallas abortion clinic, complained that Moore used a bullhorn on one occasion during a peaceful protest. Upon learning this violated a local noise ordinance, Moore stopped using the bullhorn.
The abortion mill also claimed Moore was “too aggressive” and had trespassed on its property – something Moore denies and which he says the clinic made no attempt to prove.
Stanek wrote that the agents – who said their department also investigates hate crimes such as those committed by white supremacists – asked “inappropriate questions clearly aimed at intimidating Andy, while also launching into a fishing expedition about me.” Agents reportedly asked her son-in-law whether Stanek had inspired his activism, whether she trained him, and if he got his ideas from her.
They also asked, “What affiliations do you have including church groups?”
Stanek said the agents were most interested in getting him to name other pro-lifers who he believes are overly “abrasive or aggressive.”
Monday, June 18, 2012
Friday, June 15, 2012
UN CEDAW Committee Blasts Brazil for Not Pushing Abortion
From: Life News.com
The CEDAW Committee, charged with monitoring the implementation of the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), has warned Brazil that its democratic lawmaking process is a threat to “sexual and reproductive rights,” and the Committee continues to insist that illegal abortion has a negative impact on maternal mortality.
In its Concluding Observations, at the end of the consideration of the Brazilian report in Geneva in March, the Committee said it “regrets that women who undergo illegal abortions continue to face criminal sanctions in the State party and that women’s enjoyment of sexual and reproductive health and rights is being jeopardized by a number of bills under consideration in the National Congress, such as Bill No. 478/2008 (Estatuto Nascituro).”
It is not the first time that the Committee has told delegations that their country’s culture, laws and lawmaking processes are not up to par because of restrictions on abortion. It has done so over one hundred times. What is novel is the Committee pronouncing itself on legislation that has not yet been adopted, in a country with a well-established democratic system.
The Committee is insistent that women should have access to abortion notwithstanding measures set in place by the Brazilian government to reduce maternal and child mortality. In its report, Brazil mentioned a new program called Rede Cegonha (Stork Network) that is aimed at providing maternal and neonatal care to women with low incomes.
The Committee brushed aside this effort because “it is concerned that this program might not sufficiently address all causes of maternal mortality as it merely focuses on care services for pregnant women.” The Committee is evidently referring to what abortion advocates call “unsafe abortion.” The first ever epidemiological study of the effect of illegal abortion on maternal mortality has shown there is no proof that legalizing abortion reduces overall maternal mortality.
The CEDAW Committee is following the lead of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay, whose office provides logistical support to the whole UN human rights system. In a recent talk she suggested plainly that from a human rights perspective abortion and contraception are more important than maternal and neonatal health care.
“While interventions focused on the health aspects of maternal mortality may concentrate on the quality of care for pregnant women, a human rights analysis requires us to examine whether women have a choice in deciding to become pregnant in the first place, or the choice to seek the care that they require without having to obtain permission from male relatives,” Pillay said.
Other comments by the Committee during this last session included references to women and adolescents who are victims “because of conservative cultural patterns,” gaps in the legislations on issues like “genetic developments, technological advances and sexual-orientation,” and a comment on the Brazilian Judiciary describing how “it reproduces social stereotypes with a predominantly patriarchal attribution of social roles.”
In its Concluding Observations, at the end of the consideration of the Brazilian report in Geneva in March, the Committee said it “regrets that women who undergo illegal abortions continue to face criminal sanctions in the State party and that women’s enjoyment of sexual and reproductive health and rights is being jeopardized by a number of bills under consideration in the National Congress, such as Bill No. 478/2008 (Estatuto Nascituro).”
It is not the first time that the Committee has told delegations that their country’s culture, laws and lawmaking processes are not up to par because of restrictions on abortion. It has done so over one hundred times. What is novel is the Committee pronouncing itself on legislation that has not yet been adopted, in a country with a well-established democratic system.
The Committee is insistent that women should have access to abortion notwithstanding measures set in place by the Brazilian government to reduce maternal and child mortality. In its report, Brazil mentioned a new program called Rede Cegonha (Stork Network) that is aimed at providing maternal and neonatal care to women with low incomes.
The Committee brushed aside this effort because “it is concerned that this program might not sufficiently address all causes of maternal mortality as it merely focuses on care services for pregnant women.” The Committee is evidently referring to what abortion advocates call “unsafe abortion.” The first ever epidemiological study of the effect of illegal abortion on maternal mortality has shown there is no proof that legalizing abortion reduces overall maternal mortality.
The CEDAW Committee is following the lead of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay, whose office provides logistical support to the whole UN human rights system. In a recent talk she suggested plainly that from a human rights perspective abortion and contraception are more important than maternal and neonatal health care.
“While interventions focused on the health aspects of maternal mortality may concentrate on the quality of care for pregnant women, a human rights analysis requires us to examine whether women have a choice in deciding to become pregnant in the first place, or the choice to seek the care that they require without having to obtain permission from male relatives,” Pillay said.
Other comments by the Committee during this last session included references to women and adolescents who are victims “because of conservative cultural patterns,” gaps in the legislations on issues like “genetic developments, technological advances and sexual-orientation,” and a comment on the Brazilian Judiciary describing how “it reproduces social stereotypes with a predominantly patriarchal attribution of social roles.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
