Ask Pro-Choice People, What is an Abortion?
8 years ago
Saturday, May 30, 2009
A 21 week fetus grasps the finger of surgeon during spinal bifida surgery
Read this beautiful story of a little 21 week fetus that reached out and grabbed the finger of his surgeon! Click here to read the story and see this beautiful amazing picture!
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Thank you Congressman Sensenbrenner and Congressman Smith
From Pro Life Blogs
Congressmen to Obama: Stop Efforts to Rescind Conscience Protection Will Reduce Abortions
By Georgia Kijesky on May 23, 2009 7:57 AM No Comments
ShareThis
Washington, May 19 - In response to President Obama's commencement address last Sunday at the University of Notre Dame, today Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Congressman Chris Smith(R-NJ),, co-chair of the House Pro-Life Caucus, held a press conference in Washington, D.C. and sent a letter to President Obama calling on him to publicly forgo rescinding the Bush Administration conscience protection regulation.
In the letter Sensenbrenner and Smith write, "You indicated that you wanted to 'honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion.' Given our agreement in regard to a conscience clause, we respectfully request that you put an end to your Administration's review of the Bush Administration rule that enforces existing conscience protection laws and completely forgo the rescinding of this rule. In addition, we urge you to commit to defending conscience protections in future rulemaking that affects both individual and institutional health care providers."
The letter goes on to state that, "We should reduce the number of abortions by continuing the restrictions on abortion funding... We urge you to use all the tools at your disposable to keep conscience protections in place and reduce the number of abortions in the United States."
Congressman Sensenbrenner and Congressman Smith are heartened to share common ground with the President on the issue of conscience and want to work toward a better solution that protects life and the rights of health care employees.
"If this Administration wants to be the Administration of choice, then all people need to have their choices protected," Sensenbrenner said. "The religious and moral views of health care workers should be respected. Workers should have the right to refuse to participate in an abortion procedure without the fear of losing their job or being discriminated against."
"We're simply asking President Obama to ensure that his deeds match his words," said Rep. Chris Smith, co-chair of the House Pro-Life Caucus. "This past weekend President Obama said that he believes we should 'honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion," Smith noted. "To make that happen, Mr. President," Smith added, "simply stop all your efforts, and those of your Administration, to rescind the current conscience regulations that protect the fundamental right to prolife healthcare workers--and Catholic Hospitals--to refuse to participate in procedures that they find morally reprehensible. Protecting conscience is the truly pro-choice position and respects the diversity of opinion in our society as well as the sanctity of life."
In 2008, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a rule that prohibited recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and health care aides who refuse to take part in medical procedures in which they have religious or moral objections. The rule implemented existing conscience protection laws that ensure medical professionals cannot be denied employment because they do not want to provide abortions. Although federal law has long forbidden discrimination against health care professionals who refuse to perform abortions or provide referrals for them, the regulation required institutions that get federal funding to certify their compliance with laws protecting conscience rights, promoted education within the medical community regarding their rights, and provided an avenue of recourse in the event of discrimination through the Office of Civil Rights within HHS.
It was at the end of February, when the Obama Administration announced that it began "reviewing" the regulations implementing conscience laws, the first step toward rescinding the rule altogether. At that time, as part of a bipartisan effort, Sensenbrenner and Smith joined in a statement expressing their concern about the President's review of the clause.
Categories:
Abortion
Congressmen to Obama: Stop Efforts to Rescind Conscience Protection Will Reduce Abortions
By Georgia Kijesky on May 23, 2009 7:57 AM No Comments
ShareThis
Washington, May 19 - In response to President Obama's commencement address last Sunday at the University of Notre Dame, today Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Congressman Chris Smith(R-NJ),, co-chair of the House Pro-Life Caucus, held a press conference in Washington, D.C. and sent a letter to President Obama calling on him to publicly forgo rescinding the Bush Administration conscience protection regulation.
In the letter Sensenbrenner and Smith write, "You indicated that you wanted to 'honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion.' Given our agreement in regard to a conscience clause, we respectfully request that you put an end to your Administration's review of the Bush Administration rule that enforces existing conscience protection laws and completely forgo the rescinding of this rule. In addition, we urge you to commit to defending conscience protections in future rulemaking that affects both individual and institutional health care providers."
The letter goes on to state that, "We should reduce the number of abortions by continuing the restrictions on abortion funding... We urge you to use all the tools at your disposable to keep conscience protections in place and reduce the number of abortions in the United States."
Congressman Sensenbrenner and Congressman Smith are heartened to share common ground with the President on the issue of conscience and want to work toward a better solution that protects life and the rights of health care employees.
"If this Administration wants to be the Administration of choice, then all people need to have their choices protected," Sensenbrenner said. "The religious and moral views of health care workers should be respected. Workers should have the right to refuse to participate in an abortion procedure without the fear of losing their job or being discriminated against."
"We're simply asking President Obama to ensure that his deeds match his words," said Rep. Chris Smith, co-chair of the House Pro-Life Caucus. "This past weekend President Obama said that he believes we should 'honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion," Smith noted. "To make that happen, Mr. President," Smith added, "simply stop all your efforts, and those of your Administration, to rescind the current conscience regulations that protect the fundamental right to prolife healthcare workers--and Catholic Hospitals--to refuse to participate in procedures that they find morally reprehensible. Protecting conscience is the truly pro-choice position and respects the diversity of opinion in our society as well as the sanctity of life."
In 2008, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a rule that prohibited recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and health care aides who refuse to take part in medical procedures in which they have religious or moral objections. The rule implemented existing conscience protection laws that ensure medical professionals cannot be denied employment because they do not want to provide abortions. Although federal law has long forbidden discrimination against health care professionals who refuse to perform abortions or provide referrals for them, the regulation required institutions that get federal funding to certify their compliance with laws protecting conscience rights, promoted education within the medical community regarding their rights, and provided an avenue of recourse in the event of discrimination through the Office of Civil Rights within HHS.
It was at the end of February, when the Obama Administration announced that it began "reviewing" the regulations implementing conscience laws, the first step toward rescinding the rule altogether. At that time, as part of a bipartisan effort, Sensenbrenner and Smith joined in a statement expressing their concern about the President's review of the clause.
Categories:
Abortion
Even an self proclaimed AntiChrist can see it!
Read Jill Stanek's page here.
Denver Post columnist converts to pro-life, almost
We may be seeing the house of cards starting to fall. Recent polls indicating a growing nationwide affinity to the pro-life position prompted self-described "atheist and a secular kinda guy" Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi to announce in a column yesterday he's lining up with the new majority:
After a life of being pro-choice, I began to seriously ponder the question. I oppose the death penalty because there is a slim chance that an innocent person might be executed and I don't believe the state should have the authority to take a citizen's life.?
So don't I owe an nascent human life at least the same deference? Just in case?
You may not consider a fetus a "human life" in early pregnancy, though it has its own DNA and medical science continues to find ways to keep the fetus viable outside the womb earlier and earlier.
But it's difficult to understand how those who harp about the importance of "science" in public policy can draw an arbitrary timeline in the pregnancy, defining when human life is worth saving and when it can be terminated.
The more I thought about it, the creepier the issue got....
I'm sure it was difficult for Harsanyi to write that column, beginning to distance himself from his culture on its cornerstone point. Then again, gaining a sense that one's belief is not only noble but popular may embolden more, hence my thought we may be seeing the house of cards start to fall. Harsanyi is not quite there, but he's on his way:
Now, I happen to believe... that the right to life and liberty is the foundation of a moral society. Then again, I also believe a government ban on abortion would only criminalize the procedure and do little to mitigate the amount of abortions.
I wrote this as a comment response to Harsanyi:
There is no law that has not been broken. But we do not stop making them. It would appear that laws against child porn have done little to mitigate child porn, but we do not abandon the law and forsake the children.
At any rate, I think your premise is faulty. Laws restricting abortion have indeed mitigated it - from parental notice before a minor aborts to 24-hour waiting periods before abortions. It stands to reason that making abortion illegal will lower the number of abortions.
[HT: Dougy, moderator Chris]
Denver Post columnist converts to pro-life, almost
We may be seeing the house of cards starting to fall. Recent polls indicating a growing nationwide affinity to the pro-life position prompted self-described "atheist and a secular kinda guy" Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi to announce in a column yesterday he's lining up with the new majority:
After a life of being pro-choice, I began to seriously ponder the question. I oppose the death penalty because there is a slim chance that an innocent person might be executed and I don't believe the state should have the authority to take a citizen's life.?
So don't I owe an nascent human life at least the same deference? Just in case?
You may not consider a fetus a "human life" in early pregnancy, though it has its own DNA and medical science continues to find ways to keep the fetus viable outside the womb earlier and earlier.
But it's difficult to understand how those who harp about the importance of "science" in public policy can draw an arbitrary timeline in the pregnancy, defining when human life is worth saving and when it can be terminated.
The more I thought about it, the creepier the issue got....
I'm sure it was difficult for Harsanyi to write that column, beginning to distance himself from his culture on its cornerstone point. Then again, gaining a sense that one's belief is not only noble but popular may embolden more, hence my thought we may be seeing the house of cards start to fall. Harsanyi is not quite there, but he's on his way:
Now, I happen to believe... that the right to life and liberty is the foundation of a moral society. Then again, I also believe a government ban on abortion would only criminalize the procedure and do little to mitigate the amount of abortions.
I wrote this as a comment response to Harsanyi:
There is no law that has not been broken. But we do not stop making them. It would appear that laws against child porn have done little to mitigate child porn, but we do not abandon the law and forsake the children.
At any rate, I think your premise is faulty. Laws restricting abortion have indeed mitigated it - from parental notice before a minor aborts to 24-hour waiting periods before abortions. It stands to reason that making abortion illegal will lower the number of abortions.
[HT: Dougy, moderator Chris]
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Respect for women and unborn?
Read more here.
by Kelli
Spotlighting important information gleaned from other pro-life blogs...
Suzanne from Big Blue Wave is featured as a guest columnist at No Apologies. In her article, she urges pro-life women to make themselves heard and to not allow one type of "feminist" to speak for all women...
People must understand that respect for the unborn does not preclude respect for women. Equality exists by virtue of the fact that we are all human beings; it is not created by making some people more powerful and some people less.
Women are not made less equal by respecting the rights of others. If anything, women are diminished by the notion that the most important power they have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy is to kill their unborn child. It suggests that it is necessary to excuse women from killing because they are not strong enough or responsible enough to do otherwise, and must compensate for their biological weakness. Men don't get that privilege, so why should women?
Once people see that respect for unborn children does not entail disrespect for women, they will be more open to considering equality for the unborn child.
And there will be a greater respect for women, too.
2 Seconds Faster draws attention to an Argus Leader report that Planned Parenthood is fighting SD's "state-approved language in the paperwork that is presented to women seeking abortions":
The filing is the latest round in a 4-year court battle between the state of SD and Planned Parenthood of MN and the Dakotas...
The organization objects to its doctors being forced to use phrases that PP considers ideological, such as: "That the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."
State Health Department officials declined to comment on what sanctions PP might face, or if there is a deadline for the agency to comply with the health department's demand...
In an e-mail sent to PP in Sioux Falls... the state warned the agency of possible sanctions if it fails to use a state-approved disclosure form, including being cited for "deficiencies" associated with the form.
"Any abortion facility violating any of the provisions of (state law) places its abortion facility license at risk for suspension or revocation," Anthony Nelson, administrator of the state Office of Data, Statistics, and Vital Records, said in the e-mail.
But PP argues that a state law passed in 2005 does not require a scripted form, and that the agency is "free to choose the specific text of the disclosures they provide" so long as the state-required disclosures about certain biological facts are disclosed.Apparently, PP would rather not inform clients of the scientific and biological fact that the unborn are indeed "living human being[s]." What a surprise.
Both sides await a final ruling.
by Kelli
Spotlighting important information gleaned from other pro-life blogs...
Suzanne from Big Blue Wave is featured as a guest columnist at No Apologies. In her article, she urges pro-life women to make themselves heard and to not allow one type of "feminist" to speak for all women...
People must understand that respect for the unborn does not preclude respect for women. Equality exists by virtue of the fact that we are all human beings; it is not created by making some people more powerful and some people less.
Women are not made less equal by respecting the rights of others. If anything, women are diminished by the notion that the most important power they have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy is to kill their unborn child. It suggests that it is necessary to excuse women from killing because they are not strong enough or responsible enough to do otherwise, and must compensate for their biological weakness. Men don't get that privilege, so why should women?
Once people see that respect for unborn children does not entail disrespect for women, they will be more open to considering equality for the unborn child.
And there will be a greater respect for women, too.
2 Seconds Faster draws attention to an Argus Leader report that Planned Parenthood is fighting SD's "state-approved language in the paperwork that is presented to women seeking abortions":
The filing is the latest round in a 4-year court battle between the state of SD and Planned Parenthood of MN and the Dakotas...
The organization objects to its doctors being forced to use phrases that PP considers ideological, such as: "That the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."
State Health Department officials declined to comment on what sanctions PP might face, or if there is a deadline for the agency to comply with the health department's demand...
In an e-mail sent to PP in Sioux Falls... the state warned the agency of possible sanctions if it fails to use a state-approved disclosure form, including being cited for "deficiencies" associated with the form.
"Any abortion facility violating any of the provisions of (state law) places its abortion facility license at risk for suspension or revocation," Anthony Nelson, administrator of the state Office of Data, Statistics, and Vital Records, said in the e-mail.
But PP argues that a state law passed in 2005 does not require a scripted form, and that the agency is "free to choose the specific text of the disclosures they provide" so long as the state-required disclosures about certain biological facts are disclosed.Apparently, PP would rather not inform clients of the scientific and biological fact that the unborn are indeed "living human being[s]." What a surprise.
Both sides await a final ruling.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Sotomayor's record
Dear Friend,
We’ve been working hard in the lead-up to the Supreme Court nomination to prepare . . . and today was the day. As you know, the President nominated Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
We’ve spent the day responding to requests for a response from a pro-life perspective -- running from the Associated Press to the BBC to FOX Radio and more.
The Washington Post gave AUL credit for leading the way in researching Sotomayor’s record and being one of the first pro-life groups to comment on her nomination. We want to keep you informed as this nomination process goes forward, so please stop by AUL.org for more background on Judge Sotomayor.
So what do we think? Frankly, this is a very troubling nomination. In listing his requirements for a Supreme Court pick, President Obama highlighted “empathy” rather than loyalty to Constitutional principles. Now, we see what that means -- a judge who makes it clear she decides cases on feelings, not facts. She is a radical judicial activist who readily admits that she applies her personal political agenda when deciding cases. In a speech at Duke Law School at 2005, Sotomayor said that her own Court of Appeals -- not the democratically elected legislature -- is “where policy is made.” Taking such “judicial action,” she said in a 2004 speech, is part of the “heroics of judges today; it may dwell in protecting our own turf and ensuring that it is we who interpret the law.” Sotomayor’s philosophy of radical judicial activism is exactly the thinking that led to the Supreme Court turning into the “National Abortion Control Board,” denying the American people the right to be heard on this critical issue. She will further entrench the Court’s self-appointed role as the sole arbiter of abortion policy. Based on her judicial philosophy, we expect her to elevate unrestricted, unregulated, and taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand to a fundamental constitutional right by reading the sweeping Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) into the Constitution.
Pro-abortion groups are already lining up to endorse Obama’s choice. NARAL praised her “distinguished record of professional accomplishments,” while the National Organization for Women (NOW) said it would “celebrate” the nomination with a “Confirm Her” ad campaign.
That’s why it’s so important we get out the truth about Sotomayor’s radical judicial activism. Our recent polling data shows 69% of the American people believe that “some federal judges have gone too far by doing more than just interpreting the law and instead are making new law.” Mainstream America will not tolerate the choice of a Supreme Court nominee who, instead of following her duty to uphold the Constitution, chooses instead to dictate her own personal political agenda.
We’ve been working hard in the lead-up to the Supreme Court nomination to prepare . . . and today was the day. As you know, the President nominated Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
We’ve spent the day responding to requests for a response from a pro-life perspective -- running from the Associated Press to the BBC to FOX Radio and more.
The Washington Post gave AUL credit for leading the way in researching Sotomayor’s record and being one of the first pro-life groups to comment on her nomination. We want to keep you informed as this nomination process goes forward, so please stop by AUL.org for more background on Judge Sotomayor.
So what do we think? Frankly, this is a very troubling nomination. In listing his requirements for a Supreme Court pick, President Obama highlighted “empathy” rather than loyalty to Constitutional principles. Now, we see what that means -- a judge who makes it clear she decides cases on feelings, not facts. She is a radical judicial activist who readily admits that she applies her personal political agenda when deciding cases. In a speech at Duke Law School at 2005, Sotomayor said that her own Court of Appeals -- not the democratically elected legislature -- is “where policy is made.” Taking such “judicial action,” she said in a 2004 speech, is part of the “heroics of judges today; it may dwell in protecting our own turf and ensuring that it is we who interpret the law.” Sotomayor’s philosophy of radical judicial activism is exactly the thinking that led to the Supreme Court turning into the “National Abortion Control Board,” denying the American people the right to be heard on this critical issue. She will further entrench the Court’s self-appointed role as the sole arbiter of abortion policy. Based on her judicial philosophy, we expect her to elevate unrestricted, unregulated, and taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand to a fundamental constitutional right by reading the sweeping Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) into the Constitution.
Pro-abortion groups are already lining up to endorse Obama’s choice. NARAL praised her “distinguished record of professional accomplishments,” while the National Organization for Women (NOW) said it would “celebrate” the nomination with a “Confirm Her” ad campaign.
That’s why it’s so important we get out the truth about Sotomayor’s radical judicial activism. Our recent polling data shows 69% of the American people believe that “some federal judges have gone too far by doing more than just interpreting the law and instead are making new law.” Mainstream America will not tolerate the choice of a Supreme Court nominee who, instead of following her duty to uphold the Constitution, chooses instead to dictate her own personal political agenda.
Organized for Life Leads Campaign Against Activist Judicial Nominee
Please read and sign this petition.
By OrganizedForLife on May 26, 2009 11:52 PM No Comments
ShareThis
Sign the petition against Sonia Sotomayor at http://www.stopsotomayor.com/
Washington, DC- Organized for Life has stepped up as the leading force against President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy created by Justice Souter. Organized for Life's PAC, OFL Action, has opened a petition site at http://www.stopsotomayor.com/ to oppose the addition of another potentially pro-abortion justice to the Supreme Court.
Sonia Sotomayer has a record of legislating from the bench that stands against the will of the majority of Americans. Fifty-one percent of Americans call themselves pro-life. Eighty-two percent of Americans do not want a justice who would support partial-birth and late term abortion. Sixty-nine percent do not want a justice that opposes parental involvement laws. This open spot on the Court was PresidentObama's opportunity to create the common ground he seeks by representing the American people's views on abortion, he missed the mark completely in nominating Sonia Sotomayor who believes she can legislate from Justice Souter's seat.
Peter Shinn, national director of Organized for Life, commented that, "Sonia Sotomayor is out of step with the American people. Quoted in 2005 as believing that policy comes from the bench, she stands counter to the American people's desire to end the tragedy of abortion rather than continue the culture of death imposed on this country by its highest court."
Ruben Obregon, president of Organized for Life, added, "In nominating Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama chose to further his own pro-abortion agenda rather than seek common ground on the abortion issue by choosing a nominee in line with the majority of the country. Instead of faithfully representing the country's views, President Obama has added another reliably liberal member to the Court who will continue to impose the Court's will on the people. Pro-life activists, theDavids in this epic battle for life, can only stop the Goliath of the White House by banding together and signing the petition at http://www.stopsotomayor.com/."
The petition against Sonia Sotomayor be found at www.stopsotomayor.com and will be sent to President Obama and the members of the United States Senate. Let's go out, let's get organized for life, and let's legally protect our children, one Supreme Court justice at a time.
By OrganizedForLife on May 26, 2009 11:52 PM No Comments
ShareThis
Sign the petition against Sonia Sotomayor at http://www.stopsotomayor.com/
Washington, DC- Organized for Life has stepped up as the leading force against President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy created by Justice Souter. Organized for Life's PAC, OFL Action, has opened a petition site at http://www.stopsotomayor.com/ to oppose the addition of another potentially pro-abortion justice to the Supreme Court.
Sonia Sotomayer has a record of legislating from the bench that stands against the will of the majority of Americans. Fifty-one percent of Americans call themselves pro-life. Eighty-two percent of Americans do not want a justice who would support partial-birth and late term abortion. Sixty-nine percent do not want a justice that opposes parental involvement laws. This open spot on the Court was PresidentObama's opportunity to create the common ground he seeks by representing the American people's views on abortion, he missed the mark completely in nominating Sonia Sotomayor who believes she can legislate from Justice Souter's seat.
Peter Shinn, national director of Organized for Life, commented that, "Sonia Sotomayor is out of step with the American people. Quoted in 2005 as believing that policy comes from the bench, she stands counter to the American people's desire to end the tragedy of abortion rather than continue the culture of death imposed on this country by its highest court."
Ruben Obregon, president of Organized for Life, added, "In nominating Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama chose to further his own pro-abortion agenda rather than seek common ground on the abortion issue by choosing a nominee in line with the majority of the country. Instead of faithfully representing the country's views, President Obama has added another reliably liberal member to the Court who will continue to impose the Court's will on the people. Pro-life activists, theDavids in this epic battle for life, can only stop the Goliath of the White House by banding together and signing the petition at http://www.stopsotomayor.com/."
The petition against Sonia Sotomayor be found at www.stopsotomayor.com and will be sent to President Obama and the members of the United States Senate. Let's go out, let's get organized for life, and let's legally protect our children, one Supreme Court justice at a time.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
video collection breaks down development into monthly segments
A wonderful video collection for moms-to-be! Click here to watch what is happening to you and your baby!
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
American Adoption
Here is a link to American Adoption... You can find information from all sides. Click here.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Life Liberty and Justice for All?
Notice the right side bar? Medical facts as well as adoption options are listed under medical facts.Under Action Links you will find several links to sites that will direct you on a path to get involved in the fight against abortion. Under Bog List you will find highly effective blogs that are well known and reliable for the newest information available. Organized for Life feed covers endless ways to get involved.
I want to get personal for a minute.
I found out yesterday that my baby sister (20 yrs old) is pregnant! She is due Jan. 18 2009. I am thrilled. My parents and grandparents are thrilled. My sister and her husband are thrilled. My middle sister is thrilled. My middle sister has had two miscarriages. She cries often for her losses and suffers a condition making it very difficult to conceive. I have two beautiful daughters. Our baby sister is now expecting. My middle sister is still empty handed. I can't begin to understand why she is faced with this emptiness. I don't understand. I do know however, that there are babies killed daily in the name of 'choice' while my wonderful loving sister has an empty womb and a heavy heart. I want nothing more than to put a stop to legal abortion. But I want to uplift adoption. Make adoption less expensive and less painful. Make adoption well known, not a closed door. I am sad. I feel like freedom can go too far. When we tear apart sleeping infants in the womb in the name of freedom, we have given our soldiers who fight for freedom a bad name. I don't want my tax dollars to fund abortion. I don't want my flag to stand for abortion tolerance. What happened to Life, Liberty, and Justice for All?
I want to get personal for a minute.
I found out yesterday that my baby sister (20 yrs old) is pregnant! She is due Jan. 18 2009. I am thrilled. My parents and grandparents are thrilled. My sister and her husband are thrilled. My middle sister is thrilled. My middle sister has had two miscarriages. She cries often for her losses and suffers a condition making it very difficult to conceive. I have two beautiful daughters. Our baby sister is now expecting. My middle sister is still empty handed. I can't begin to understand why she is faced with this emptiness. I don't understand. I do know however, that there are babies killed daily in the name of 'choice' while my wonderful loving sister has an empty womb and a heavy heart. I want nothing more than to put a stop to legal abortion. But I want to uplift adoption. Make adoption less expensive and less painful. Make adoption well known, not a closed door. I am sad. I feel like freedom can go too far. When we tear apart sleeping infants in the womb in the name of freedom, we have given our soldiers who fight for freedom a bad name. I don't want my tax dollars to fund abortion. I don't want my flag to stand for abortion tolerance. What happened to Life, Liberty, and Justice for All?
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Do something here is your chance!
Support cures we can all live with!
By rebecca on May 14, 2009 3:36 PM No Comments
ShareThis
As the National Institutes of Health and lawmakers discuss the future of federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, now is the time to make your opinion heard. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is urging everyone to contact the NIH and their representatives in Congress and let them know you oppose the funding of stem cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos. From the USCCB website:
Following President Obama's March 9 executive order, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has proposed guidelines for federally funded embryonic stem cell research. The guidelines would - for the first time - use taxpayer funds to encourage the killing of embryonic human beings for their stem cells.
This marks a new chapter in divorcing biomedical research from its necessary ethical foundation, respect for human life at all stages.
Embryonic stem cell research treats innocent human beings as mere sources of body parts, as commodities for our use.
Even if, like the embryos targeted by the NIH policy, an embryo may be at risk of being abandoned by his or her parents in a fertility clinic, that does not give researchers or the government a right to kill that human being - much less a right to make the rest of us subsidize that destructive agenda.
Some in Congress and the Administration want an even broader policy. They want to obtain stem cells by destroying human embryos specially generated for research through in vitro fertilization (IVF) or cloning procedures - a "create to kill" policy.
Neither of these policies is ethical or promotes responsible science. They both violate the fundamental right to life.
Patients suffering from devastating illnesses deserve our compassion and our committed response - but not at the cost of innocent life. The Church supports ethical stem cell research and treatments that do no harm and respect the inherent dignity of persons - cutting-edge medical advances that are already benefiting patients with dozens of conditions in clinical trials.
It is time to focus on cures and treatments we can all live with.
Please go to this website and contact your representative and tell them you do not want your hard earned money to fund the creation and/or destruction of fellow members of your species for research.
Categories:
Action Items,
Bioethics,
Cloning,
In Vitro Fertilization,
Medical Ethics,
Politics,
Pro-Life,
Stem Cells
By rebecca on May 14, 2009 3:36 PM No Comments
ShareThis
As the National Institutes of Health and lawmakers discuss the future of federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, now is the time to make your opinion heard. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is urging everyone to contact the NIH and their representatives in Congress and let them know you oppose the funding of stem cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos. From the USCCB website:
Following President Obama's March 9 executive order, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has proposed guidelines for federally funded embryonic stem cell research. The guidelines would - for the first time - use taxpayer funds to encourage the killing of embryonic human beings for their stem cells.
This marks a new chapter in divorcing biomedical research from its necessary ethical foundation, respect for human life at all stages.
Embryonic stem cell research treats innocent human beings as mere sources of body parts, as commodities for our use.
Even if, like the embryos targeted by the NIH policy, an embryo may be at risk of being abandoned by his or her parents in a fertility clinic, that does not give researchers or the government a right to kill that human being - much less a right to make the rest of us subsidize that destructive agenda.
Some in Congress and the Administration want an even broader policy. They want to obtain stem cells by destroying human embryos specially generated for research through in vitro fertilization (IVF) or cloning procedures - a "create to kill" policy.
Neither of these policies is ethical or promotes responsible science. They both violate the fundamental right to life.
Patients suffering from devastating illnesses deserve our compassion and our committed response - but not at the cost of innocent life. The Church supports ethical stem cell research and treatments that do no harm and respect the inherent dignity of persons - cutting-edge medical advances that are already benefiting patients with dozens of conditions in clinical trials.
It is time to focus on cures and treatments we can all live with.
Please go to this website and contact your representative and tell them you do not want your hard earned money to fund the creation and/or destruction of fellow members of your species for research.
Categories:
Action Items,
Bioethics,
Cloning,
In Vitro Fertilization,
Medical Ethics,
Politics,
Pro-Life,
Stem Cells
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Planned Parenthood Admits to Killing Babies
This video has no pictures just a nurse in the shadows. Please take the time to watch. Don't forget your tax dollars are paying them.
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=e46UZuaGSU
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=e46UZuaGSU
Obama's 'short list'
courtesy of Americans United for Life.
“In Defense of Life?” Potential U.S. Supreme Court Nominees
“Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind.” -- Hugo Black, Turner v. United States, 1970
During his campaign, President Obama stated that he would appoint U.S. Supreme Court justices in the mold of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, two of the Court’s most ardent abortion rights supporters. President Obama further stated that he finds himself compelled “to side with Justice [Stephen] Breyer’s view of the Constitution -- that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.”
On March 17, 2009, true to his expressed intent to appoint pro-abortion judges who will interpret the American Constitution in light of ever-evolving circumstances rather than the original intent of the Framers, President Obama used his first judicial appointment to select radically pro-abortion U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Moreover, less than four months after taking office, the new Administration and abortion advocates are already employing a variety of executive, budgetary, and legislative means to implement the expansive aims of the controversial Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) which seeks to impose unrestricted, unregulated, unapologetic, and taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand on an unwilling American public.
Clearly, the ability to appoint federal judges -- including U.S. Supreme Court Justices -- is a powerful means toward the end of imposing “FOCA by Stealth,” advancing its radical aims piecemeal and surreptitiously instead of as one legislative package that can be fully evaluated and debated by the American public, individually and through our elected representatives. We expect a judicial activist, once seated on the Court, to work to read FOCA into the Constitution, elevating abortion to the status of a fundamental right, on the same plane as freedom of speech.
The Probable “Short List”
Solicitor General of the United States, Elena Kagan
Despite authoring a 1993 law review article acknowledging that the harms inherent in abortion are open to debate, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, the former dean of Harvard Law School, has publicly and repeatedly criticized Rust v. Sullivan, a 1991 U.S Supreme Court decision upholding federal regulations that prohibit recipients of Title X family planning funds from counseling on or referring women for abortions. Ignoring the American public’s opposition to the use of taxpayer dollars to directly or indirectly subsidize abortion, Kagan argued that the regulations amounted to the subsidization of "anti-abortion" speech.
Earlier, while serving as a clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan wrote a memo suggesting that faith-based groups -- specifically those that operate pregnancy care centers -- should not play a role in counseling pregnant teens because they would not be able to do so without injecting their religious beliefs.
The Honorable Diane Wood, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
As a judge with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal, Judge Wood has placed her pro-abortion ideology above her judicial duty in cases involving common-sense restrictions on abortion and also in cases involving the rights of pro-life demonstrators.
In 1998, Judge Wood issued written opinions disputing the constitutionality of partial-birth abortion bans that had recently been enacted in Illinois and Wisconsin. Moreover, in a 2002 case challenging an Indiana informed consent law -- one that was nearly identical to a similar law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey -- Wood dissented from her fellow judges’ decision to permit enforcement of the law and opined that the law was unconstitutional (without distinguishing it in any meaningful way from a law that the U.S. Supreme Court had deemed constitutional nearly 6 years earlier).
Further, in NOW v. Scheidler, Judge Wood ruled that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a federal law enforcement tool designed to counter the activity of organized crime, was properly applied against pro-life demonstrators. This "novel" and controversial approach was later summarily rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano
Recently, Secretary Napolitano, who was formerly both the Attorney General and the Governor of Arizona, released a report to the nation’s law enforcement community that branded some pro-life activists as potential "domestic terrorists."
As Governor of Arizona, she routinely vetoed legislation that imposed common-sense and medically-supported regulations on abortion including bans on the dangerous and gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion (on two separate occasions); measures designed to strengthen the state’s parental consent requirement by, for example, providing uniform standards for Arizona judges to use when considering petitions for judicial bypass of the requirement (also on two separate occasions); a requirement that women considering abortion be counseled on the pain that the unborn child may feel during the procedure; a measure prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars to purchase health insurance coverage for abortions for government employees; and a measure protecting healthcare providers who decline to prescribe or dispense contraceptives including so-called “emergency contraceptives” based on ethical, moral, or religious objections. All of these vetoes occurred in just 4 years: from 2005 to 2008.
The Honorable Leah Ward Sears, Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court
Justice Sears has been a member of the Georgia judiciary since 1985 and was appointed to the Georgia Supreme Court in 1992 by then-Governor Zell Miller. She has twice won re-election and was elected Chief Justice in 2005. She will be retiring from the court in June 2009.
Justice Sears has not issued any known decision on life-related issues (except capital punishment). However, in privacy-related cases, Justice Sears has evidenced a broad conception of substantive constitutional privacy -- the very basis upon which Roe v. Wade is predicated. For example, in 1998, Justice Sears voted to overturn the state’s ban on sodomy. In her concurring opinion, Justice Sears referred to the responsibility of courts to protect constitutional rights against "morals legislation" from the majority. Throughout her judicial career and by her own admission, she has viewed the courts as the protector of the "little guy" against the public majority.
The Honorable Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Despite 17 years on the bench, Judge Sotomayor has never directly decided whether a law regulating abortion was constitutional. She has, however, decided a few cases that indirectly implicate abortion rights.
Writing for the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor upheld the Mexico City Policy which prohibited foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from using federal funding to promote abortion overseas. In a constitutional challenge brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), an American abortion advocacy group that routinely argues that "abortion is the law of the world," Judge Sotomayor first rejected a claim that the policy burdened the First Amendment rights of domestic pro-abortion groups, finding that no First Amendment rights were implicated. The significance of this part of her opinion, however, may be minimal because the issue was largely controlled by the Second Circuit’s earlier opinion in a similar challenge to the policy.
More interesting was Justice Sotomayor’s response to CRR’s second claim that the policy violated the Equal Protection Clause by impermissibly burdening the "rights of domestic abortion groups relative to domestic anti-abortion groups." Rejecting this new argument, Justice Sotomayor wrote that because the challenge involved neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right, a deferential "rational basis" test was appropriate. She then acknowledged the ability of the government to adopt anti-abortion policies, noting "there can be no question that the classification survives rational basis review. The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds."
Finally, Judge Sotomayor wrote an opinion overturning, in part, a district court’s grant of summary judgment against a group of anti-abortion protestors, albeit on an issue far removed from abortion jurisprudence. When a group of protestors sued the city of West Hartford, CT alleging its police officers used excessive force at a peaceful protest, the district court issued a summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all theories of liability. Writing for the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor reversed the district court’s summary judgment order against the protestors and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Other Potential Nominees:
Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan
Governor Granholm has stated that she "fully supports" Roe v. Wade and that she believes that the abortion decision is "[a] matter of health between a woman and her doctor." In 2002, when she first ran for Governor of Michigan, she pledged to defend access to abortion and to support an increase in the number of abortion clinics operating in the state, declaring that she would "rather work on a decrease in demand (for abortion), not supply."
She has been described by the Detroit Free Press as an "ardent supporter" of abortion. She counts the pro-abortion group, Emily’s List, as one of her major political contributors.
Further, Governor Granholm has repeatedly vetoed common-sense abortion restrictions and regulations -- measures supported by a majority of her constituents -- including a state ban on partial-birth abortion (on two occasions), as well as a measure that delineated specific procedures to be used when Michigan judges considered petitions for judicial bypass of the state’s parental consent requirement and that also sought to limit the ability of minors to "shop" for a judge who would rubber-stamp (rather than properly evaluate) their requests to exclude their parents or guardian from involvement in their abortion decisions.
Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts
Governor Patrick was elected in 2006 with the full support and endorsement of the National Organization of Women (NOW), the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), and Planned Parenthood. He strongly supports both abortion and destructive embryonic research. In 2006, while running for office, he publicly criticized former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney for his veto of a bill that would have provided state funding for destructive embryonic research and instead proposed a state bond measure to fund the controversial and ethically-problematic practice.
In response to a constituent’s question regarding his support for abortion, Patrick responded that he believes that the abortion decision should be made by the woman and not the government and implied that voters were "far less concerned" with abortion than other more practical issues such as the economy. In 2007, Patrick signed into law a measure increasing so-called "buffer zones" around abortion clinics and limiting the First Amendment rights of pro-life demonstrators.
Kathleen M. Sullivan, Stanford Law School
Professor Sullivan, who has no judicial experience, published an article in the August 1992 New Jersey Law Journal, commenting on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and arguing that legal status of abortion should be decided by the courts, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court, and not the American people through the democratic process. Sullivan argued that "women’s reproductive freedom" was "too precious and fragile" to be "left to politics."
In that same article, she inaccurately described the radical Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) as a mere "codification of the protections of Roe" and, relying on a purportedly "pro-choice" electorate, asserted that then-President George H.W. Bush would veto the measure (the version of FOCA then pending before Congress) at the Republican Party’s "peril" in the November 1992 national elections.
Cass Sunstein, White House Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulator Affairs
Echoing the views of Dawn Johnsen, one of President Obama’s most radical pro-abortion nominees to the U.S. Department of Justice, Sunstein (who graduated from Harvard Law School in 1978) has publicly argued that laws restricting abortion "co-opt women’s bodies for the protection of fetuses" and "selectively turn women’s reproductive capacities into something for the use and control of others." Failure to accept this premise -- he argues -- accepts an out-dated line of thought that renders women "involuntary childbearers."
Sunstein’s voluminous writings suggest that he believes that the so-called "right to die" is a fundamental constitutional right. He has also opined that the debate over the "right to die" is the next great "arena for the struggle to define the scope of fundamental rights under the Due Process Clause."
“In Defense of Life?” Potential U.S. Supreme Court Nominees
“Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind.” -- Hugo Black, Turner v. United States, 1970
During his campaign, President Obama stated that he would appoint U.S. Supreme Court justices in the mold of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, two of the Court’s most ardent abortion rights supporters. President Obama further stated that he finds himself compelled “to side with Justice [Stephen] Breyer’s view of the Constitution -- that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.”
On March 17, 2009, true to his expressed intent to appoint pro-abortion judges who will interpret the American Constitution in light of ever-evolving circumstances rather than the original intent of the Framers, President Obama used his first judicial appointment to select radically pro-abortion U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Moreover, less than four months after taking office, the new Administration and abortion advocates are already employing a variety of executive, budgetary, and legislative means to implement the expansive aims of the controversial Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) which seeks to impose unrestricted, unregulated, unapologetic, and taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand on an unwilling American public.
Clearly, the ability to appoint federal judges -- including U.S. Supreme Court Justices -- is a powerful means toward the end of imposing “FOCA by Stealth,” advancing its radical aims piecemeal and surreptitiously instead of as one legislative package that can be fully evaluated and debated by the American public, individually and through our elected representatives. We expect a judicial activist, once seated on the Court, to work to read FOCA into the Constitution, elevating abortion to the status of a fundamental right, on the same plane as freedom of speech.
The Probable “Short List”
Solicitor General of the United States, Elena Kagan
Despite authoring a 1993 law review article acknowledging that the harms inherent in abortion are open to debate, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, the former dean of Harvard Law School, has publicly and repeatedly criticized Rust v. Sullivan, a 1991 U.S Supreme Court decision upholding federal regulations that prohibit recipients of Title X family planning funds from counseling on or referring women for abortions. Ignoring the American public’s opposition to the use of taxpayer dollars to directly or indirectly subsidize abortion, Kagan argued that the regulations amounted to the subsidization of "anti-abortion" speech.
Earlier, while serving as a clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kagan wrote a memo suggesting that faith-based groups -- specifically those that operate pregnancy care centers -- should not play a role in counseling pregnant teens because they would not be able to do so without injecting their religious beliefs.
The Honorable Diane Wood, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
As a judge with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal, Judge Wood has placed her pro-abortion ideology above her judicial duty in cases involving common-sense restrictions on abortion and also in cases involving the rights of pro-life demonstrators.
In 1998, Judge Wood issued written opinions disputing the constitutionality of partial-birth abortion bans that had recently been enacted in Illinois and Wisconsin. Moreover, in a 2002 case challenging an Indiana informed consent law -- one that was nearly identical to a similar law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey -- Wood dissented from her fellow judges’ decision to permit enforcement of the law and opined that the law was unconstitutional (without distinguishing it in any meaningful way from a law that the U.S. Supreme Court had deemed constitutional nearly 6 years earlier).
Further, in NOW v. Scheidler, Judge Wood ruled that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a federal law enforcement tool designed to counter the activity of organized crime, was properly applied against pro-life demonstrators. This "novel" and controversial approach was later summarily rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano
Recently, Secretary Napolitano, who was formerly both the Attorney General and the Governor of Arizona, released a report to the nation’s law enforcement community that branded some pro-life activists as potential "domestic terrorists."
As Governor of Arizona, she routinely vetoed legislation that imposed common-sense and medically-supported regulations on abortion including bans on the dangerous and gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion (on two separate occasions); measures designed to strengthen the state’s parental consent requirement by, for example, providing uniform standards for Arizona judges to use when considering petitions for judicial bypass of the requirement (also on two separate occasions); a requirement that women considering abortion be counseled on the pain that the unborn child may feel during the procedure; a measure prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars to purchase health insurance coverage for abortions for government employees; and a measure protecting healthcare providers who decline to prescribe or dispense contraceptives including so-called “emergency contraceptives” based on ethical, moral, or religious objections. All of these vetoes occurred in just 4 years: from 2005 to 2008.
The Honorable Leah Ward Sears, Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court
Justice Sears has been a member of the Georgia judiciary since 1985 and was appointed to the Georgia Supreme Court in 1992 by then-Governor Zell Miller. She has twice won re-election and was elected Chief Justice in 2005. She will be retiring from the court in June 2009.
Justice Sears has not issued any known decision on life-related issues (except capital punishment). However, in privacy-related cases, Justice Sears has evidenced a broad conception of substantive constitutional privacy -- the very basis upon which Roe v. Wade is predicated. For example, in 1998, Justice Sears voted to overturn the state’s ban on sodomy. In her concurring opinion, Justice Sears referred to the responsibility of courts to protect constitutional rights against "morals legislation" from the majority. Throughout her judicial career and by her own admission, she has viewed the courts as the protector of the "little guy" against the public majority.
The Honorable Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Despite 17 years on the bench, Judge Sotomayor has never directly decided whether a law regulating abortion was constitutional. She has, however, decided a few cases that indirectly implicate abortion rights.
Writing for the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor upheld the Mexico City Policy which prohibited foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from using federal funding to promote abortion overseas. In a constitutional challenge brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), an American abortion advocacy group that routinely argues that "abortion is the law of the world," Judge Sotomayor first rejected a claim that the policy burdened the First Amendment rights of domestic pro-abortion groups, finding that no First Amendment rights were implicated. The significance of this part of her opinion, however, may be minimal because the issue was largely controlled by the Second Circuit’s earlier opinion in a similar challenge to the policy.
More interesting was Justice Sotomayor’s response to CRR’s second claim that the policy violated the Equal Protection Clause by impermissibly burdening the "rights of domestic abortion groups relative to domestic anti-abortion groups." Rejecting this new argument, Justice Sotomayor wrote that because the challenge involved neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right, a deferential "rational basis" test was appropriate. She then acknowledged the ability of the government to adopt anti-abortion policies, noting "there can be no question that the classification survives rational basis review. The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds."
Finally, Judge Sotomayor wrote an opinion overturning, in part, a district court’s grant of summary judgment against a group of anti-abortion protestors, albeit on an issue far removed from abortion jurisprudence. When a group of protestors sued the city of West Hartford, CT alleging its police officers used excessive force at a peaceful protest, the district court issued a summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all theories of liability. Writing for the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor reversed the district court’s summary judgment order against the protestors and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Other Potential Nominees:
Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan
Governor Granholm has stated that she "fully supports" Roe v. Wade and that she believes that the abortion decision is "[a] matter of health between a woman and her doctor." In 2002, when she first ran for Governor of Michigan, she pledged to defend access to abortion and to support an increase in the number of abortion clinics operating in the state, declaring that she would "rather work on a decrease in demand (for abortion), not supply."
She has been described by the Detroit Free Press as an "ardent supporter" of abortion. She counts the pro-abortion group, Emily’s List, as one of her major political contributors.
Further, Governor Granholm has repeatedly vetoed common-sense abortion restrictions and regulations -- measures supported by a majority of her constituents -- including a state ban on partial-birth abortion (on two occasions), as well as a measure that delineated specific procedures to be used when Michigan judges considered petitions for judicial bypass of the state’s parental consent requirement and that also sought to limit the ability of minors to "shop" for a judge who would rubber-stamp (rather than properly evaluate) their requests to exclude their parents or guardian from involvement in their abortion decisions.
Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts
Governor Patrick was elected in 2006 with the full support and endorsement of the National Organization of Women (NOW), the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), and Planned Parenthood. He strongly supports both abortion and destructive embryonic research. In 2006, while running for office, he publicly criticized former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney for his veto of a bill that would have provided state funding for destructive embryonic research and instead proposed a state bond measure to fund the controversial and ethically-problematic practice.
In response to a constituent’s question regarding his support for abortion, Patrick responded that he believes that the abortion decision should be made by the woman and not the government and implied that voters were "far less concerned" with abortion than other more practical issues such as the economy. In 2007, Patrick signed into law a measure increasing so-called "buffer zones" around abortion clinics and limiting the First Amendment rights of pro-life demonstrators.
Kathleen M. Sullivan, Stanford Law School
Professor Sullivan, who has no judicial experience, published an article in the August 1992 New Jersey Law Journal, commenting on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and arguing that legal status of abortion should be decided by the courts, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court, and not the American people through the democratic process. Sullivan argued that "women’s reproductive freedom" was "too precious and fragile" to be "left to politics."
In that same article, she inaccurately described the radical Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) as a mere "codification of the protections of Roe" and, relying on a purportedly "pro-choice" electorate, asserted that then-President George H.W. Bush would veto the measure (the version of FOCA then pending before Congress) at the Republican Party’s "peril" in the November 1992 national elections.
Cass Sunstein, White House Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulator Affairs
Echoing the views of Dawn Johnsen, one of President Obama’s most radical pro-abortion nominees to the U.S. Department of Justice, Sunstein (who graduated from Harvard Law School in 1978) has publicly argued that laws restricting abortion "co-opt women’s bodies for the protection of fetuses" and "selectively turn women’s reproductive capacities into something for the use and control of others." Failure to accept this premise -- he argues -- accepts an out-dated line of thought that renders women "involuntary childbearers."
Sunstein’s voluminous writings suggest that he believes that the so-called "right to die" is a fundamental constitutional right. He has also opined that the debate over the "right to die" is the next great "arena for the struggle to define the scope of fundamental rights under the Due Process Clause."
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Adoption and Abortion Alternatives
LDS Family Services(866) 362-2550
Where there's help, there's hope.
Send To Phone/ Website/ Email /0 Reviews /Write a Review /
0 Reviews /
Update InfoBUSINESS OVERVIEW
Womens Health Adoption Agencies
DescriptionLDS Family Services opened its doors in 1919 with a mission of providing help and support to families. Today it is one of the largest, private, nonprofit adoption agencies in the world. The agency has offices scattered throughout the United States as well as internationally. Committed to strengthening the family, the key services provided by LDS Family Services include services to unmarried expectant parents and adoptive applicants.
Women's Health
Concerns
Family Planning
Service
Counseling
Women's Health Information
Abortion Alternatives
abortion alternatives
Pregnancy Counseling
Adoption Services
Type
Open Adoption
Closed Adoption
abortion alternativesFeatures
Religious Adoption
Cultural Adoption
Area
Domestic Adoption
International Adoption
Pregnancy Counseling
Hours
Service AreaServing: IA, UT, MN, MT, AZ, ID, CO, ND, WY, NM, NE, OR, SD, WA
Where there's help, there's hope.
Send To Phone/ Website/ Email /0 Reviews /Write a Review /
0 Reviews /
Update InfoBUSINESS OVERVIEW
Womens Health Adoption Agencies
DescriptionLDS Family Services opened its doors in 1919 with a mission of providing help and support to families. Today it is one of the largest, private, nonprofit adoption agencies in the world. The agency has offices scattered throughout the United States as well as internationally. Committed to strengthening the family, the key services provided by LDS Family Services include services to unmarried expectant parents and adoptive applicants.
Women's Health
Concerns
Family Planning
Service
Counseling
Women's Health Information
Abortion Alternatives
abortion alternatives
Pregnancy Counseling
Adoption Services
Type
Open Adoption
Closed Adoption
abortion alternativesFeatures
Religious Adoption
Cultural Adoption
Area
Domestic Adoption
International Adoption
Pregnancy Counseling
Hours
Service AreaServing: IA, UT, MN, MT, AZ, ID, CO, ND, WY, NM, NE, OR, SD, WA
Did you know??
- There have been more than 40 million abortions since 1973.
- Women have cited 'social reasons' , not mother's health or rape/incest as their motivation in approximately 93% of all abortions.
- Women have cited 'social reasons' , not mother's health or rape/incest as their motivation in approximately 93% of all abortions.
Very Good News. Yeah for plans that backfire!!
New Stanek WND column, "Pro-life Obamanation?"
By jill stanek on May 13, 2009 8:26 AM No Comments
ShareThis
The terms "pro-life" and "Obamanation" would seem incompatible.
But there may be an emerging phenomenon. While President Obama continues to enjoy popular support, his anti-life agenda is enjoying less popularity the more he tries to advance it.
The first sign was public reaction to Obama's overturning of the Mexico City policy, which reinstated taxpayer funding to international abortion groups. This garnered Obama a 65% disapproval rating, according to Gallup, making it the least popular of his first 7 decisions as president.
Then in late February, Obama....
Obama pressed on with his anti-life agenda, signing an executive order in March authorizing taxpayer funding of human embryo experimentation.... A March Pew poll showed support had "fallen below the 50% level for the first time since 2004 and constituted a slight decline in support since 2007," wrote the New York Times.
In April Politico.com reported a surge in pro-life activism....
Then an April 30 Pew poll showed the biggest drop in abortion support in 15 years.... This was consistent with a CNN poll conducted April 23-26....
Obama may be winning abortion battles, but a casualty is loss of public support in the abortion war.
Translation: Obama is making abortion unpopular.
If this keeps up, an interesting oxymoron may be....
Read my complete column today, "Pro-life Obamanation?" at WorldNetDaily.com.
Read LEARN leader Rev. Clenard Childress's similar view, "Barack Obama - The best thing to happen to end black genocide." [HT: Leslie Hanks]
Tags:
Jill Stanek,
Obama,
abortion,
anti-abortion,
anti-choice,
anti-life,
pro-abortion,
pro-choice,
pro-life
By jill stanek on May 13, 2009 8:26 AM No Comments
ShareThis
The terms "pro-life" and "Obamanation" would seem incompatible.
But there may be an emerging phenomenon. While President Obama continues to enjoy popular support, his anti-life agenda is enjoying less popularity the more he tries to advance it.
The first sign was public reaction to Obama's overturning of the Mexico City policy, which reinstated taxpayer funding to international abortion groups. This garnered Obama a 65% disapproval rating, according to Gallup, making it the least popular of his first 7 decisions as president.
Then in late February, Obama....
Obama pressed on with his anti-life agenda, signing an executive order in March authorizing taxpayer funding of human embryo experimentation.... A March Pew poll showed support had "fallen below the 50% level for the first time since 2004 and constituted a slight decline in support since 2007," wrote the New York Times.
In April Politico.com reported a surge in pro-life activism....
Then an April 30 Pew poll showed the biggest drop in abortion support in 15 years.... This was consistent with a CNN poll conducted April 23-26....
Obama may be winning abortion battles, but a casualty is loss of public support in the abortion war.
Translation: Obama is making abortion unpopular.
If this keeps up, an interesting oxymoron may be....
Read my complete column today, "Pro-life Obamanation?" at WorldNetDaily.com.
Read LEARN leader Rev. Clenard Childress's similar view, "Barack Obama - The best thing to happen to end black genocide." [HT: Leslie Hanks]
Tags:
Jill Stanek,
Obama,
abortion,
anti-abortion,
anti-choice,
anti-life,
pro-abortion,
pro-choice,
pro-life
Monday, May 11, 2009
worth the read!
English Teenage Girls Killing Their Children In Record Numbers
By peter on May 11, 2009 1:58 AM No Comments
ShareThis
If only America recognized we don't have to try out the liberal policies of sex and death to get results. Other countries are already experimenting with drugs - Amsterdam, Sex education, abortion and birth control - Europe and Socialism - Europe.
England is going through a major experiment with their teenagers right now. From Mail Online:
"The teenage pregnancy strategy, which has cost taxpayers more than £300million, was meant to halve the number of conceptions among girls under 18 in England between 1998 and 2010."
So England spent $452 million dollars to cut the teenage pregnancy rate? What were their methods?
"Ministers have tried to slash teenage pregnancies by freely handing out contraceptives and expanding sex education."
Wow, that sounds like a good plan. Oh yeah, we're doing that here in America, I forgot. There's some benevolent group called Planned Parenthood already doing that. Did I say benevolent? I meant to say profiteering group who is soaking Americans for over $350 million tax dollars every year for sex education, they make another $350 million by killing babies through prenatal murder, euphemistically called "abortion", and another $350 million dollars are donated to them by America hating groups and people, some guy named George comes to mind.
Whoops, sorry, my wife tells me I'm a lot like a squirrel, flitting to one branch after another. Where was I? Oh yeah, the great British experiment on sex and death.
"But the fall in pregnancy rates has not met Government targets, and in 2007 the rate actually rose."
Really? You mean if you encourage sex, hand out condoms and birth control like candy, more teenage girls will have sex resulting in higher pregnancy rates? What a surprise!!! The people doing this study must have college degrees. Ahm jest a dum 'ol hick & cudn't figure that 1 out if I tried.
So America, why do you think we will have different results? We've been doing the same thing, yet teenage pregnancies are the highest in the industrialized world. How can that be? We've been handing out condoms, birth control and abortion since I was a kid. When will this "experiment" end in America?
I wonder if reading the box would make a difference? Let's see, I think I'll check Planned Parenthood's web site for information on the effectiveness of condoms and birth control....dum de dum. Well what do you know, Planned Parenthood has their own brand of condoms, what a surprise. And in 2005 those condoms got the lowest rating by Consumer Reports.
I'm shocked!
Really, I'm totally amazed that their condoms perform so poorly, after all, when they fail, it looks bad on them and then our underage daughters are directed by the schools to go have an abortion. What? You say Planned Parenthood makes $350 million dollars a year on abortions? That's amazing!
What a scam. I'm going to try that one in a different way. I'm going to sell schools an ink pen that leaks. Then, when the students' clothes get covered in ink, they can come to my dry cleaner stores which I will have next to every high school. Smart thinking huh?
Yep, those Planned Parenthood folks sure are smart cookies. Oh wait, what's this? From Planned Parenthood South Central new York:
"Abstinence
How it works: Choosing not to have any sex play with a partner.
Effectiveness: 100% (if used correctly)"
If used correctly? How do you use abstinence incorrectly? I feel my knuckles starting to drag. I must be one of those "right-wing nut-jobs" who doesn't believe in eevolootion you read so much about.
Let's look at some of their other stats:
Male condom 85 - 98%, Female condom 79 - 95%
Diaphragm: 84 - 94%; Cap: 71 - 86%, Shield: 85%
Spermicide: 71 - 82%
Hmm, let me contemplate this one now. by "effectiveness" they are of course referring to a statement that might read something like "resulting in a pregnancy". After all, if the condom wasn't "effective", it doesn't just mean that the girl says "aww shucks, it didn't work". It means a baby in the belly.
So, think about those stats, and imagine them in a different way. Let's say I give you a gun.
Oh no!!! He said "gun"! Call the PC police!
Now imagine I give you a bullet to put in that gun, and then I say, "spin the chamber, put it up to your head and pull the trigger". You would say "yeah right fruitcake, don't think so! Yet we're okay with Planned Parenthood giving our children "birth control" which is guaranteed to fail 3 out of 10 times" No, let me rephrase that, "guaranteed to result in the pregnancy of our daughters 3 out of 10 times?"
Remember, these are the same people who say:
"Abstinence
How it works: Choosing not to have any sex play with a partner.
Effectiveness: 100% (if used correctly)"
Now that's like saying if I give you a gun but don't give you any bullets, you will still manage to blow your head off.
Back to the article on England. They say:
"Teenage pregnancy rates are now higher than they were in 1995. Pregnancies among girls under 16 - below the age of consent - are also at the highest level since 1998."
It took them 14 years to realize the huge mistake they have made. Countless young girls used for what I would call their 'great sex experiment', or as critics of the program over there call it the "Teenage Abortion Strategy".
What's going to be their strategy now?
"They have called for a redoubling of efforts to persuade young girls to use contraception."
They are saying to the parents of England "you people shut up about abstinence already, we're going to experiment on your daughters for another 14 years. We'll let you know how it turns out."
The nut job Ann Furedi, of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service stated:
"The fact that teenagers felt able to end their pregnancy in abortion is actually a positive sign."
She probably said that with a straight face, with other nut jobs applauding. I apologize to all the nuts out there. I really do like peanuts, so it's an insult to compare them to psychotic people like these pro-aborts.
It gets better...well, worse:
"A Department of Health spokesman said: 'One of the key aims of this Government, as set out in the Sexual Health and Teenage Pregnancy Strategies, is to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and consequently abortions, through better access to contraception."
What was that about Abstinence again?
Oh yeah:
How it works: Choosing not to have any sex play with a partner.
Effectiveness: 100% (if used correctly)"
I wonder if they have a manual for that?
Peter
Pro-Life Unity
United we stand ~ Divided they die
Pass it on
Categories:
Abortion,
Pro-Life,
Pro-Life News,
Pro-Life Unity
Tags:
abortion pastor christian catholic prolifenews prolifeunity barack obama star parker peter shinn george tiller call for life scott klusendorf organized for life england
By peter on May 11, 2009 1:58 AM No Comments
ShareThis
If only America recognized we don't have to try out the liberal policies of sex and death to get results. Other countries are already experimenting with drugs - Amsterdam, Sex education, abortion and birth control - Europe and Socialism - Europe.
England is going through a major experiment with their teenagers right now. From Mail Online:
"The teenage pregnancy strategy, which has cost taxpayers more than £300million, was meant to halve the number of conceptions among girls under 18 in England between 1998 and 2010."
So England spent $452 million dollars to cut the teenage pregnancy rate? What were their methods?
"Ministers have tried to slash teenage pregnancies by freely handing out contraceptives and expanding sex education."
Wow, that sounds like a good plan. Oh yeah, we're doing that here in America, I forgot. There's some benevolent group called Planned Parenthood already doing that. Did I say benevolent? I meant to say profiteering group who is soaking Americans for over $350 million tax dollars every year for sex education, they make another $350 million by killing babies through prenatal murder, euphemistically called "abortion", and another $350 million dollars are donated to them by America hating groups and people, some guy named George comes to mind.
Whoops, sorry, my wife tells me I'm a lot like a squirrel, flitting to one branch after another. Where was I? Oh yeah, the great British experiment on sex and death.
"But the fall in pregnancy rates has not met Government targets, and in 2007 the rate actually rose."
Really? You mean if you encourage sex, hand out condoms and birth control like candy, more teenage girls will have sex resulting in higher pregnancy rates? What a surprise!!! The people doing this study must have college degrees. Ahm jest a dum 'ol hick & cudn't figure that 1 out if I tried.
So America, why do you think we will have different results? We've been doing the same thing, yet teenage pregnancies are the highest in the industrialized world. How can that be? We've been handing out condoms, birth control and abortion since I was a kid. When will this "experiment" end in America?
I wonder if reading the box would make a difference? Let's see, I think I'll check Planned Parenthood's web site for information on the effectiveness of condoms and birth control....dum de dum. Well what do you know, Planned Parenthood has their own brand of condoms, what a surprise. And in 2005 those condoms got the lowest rating by Consumer Reports.
I'm shocked!
Really, I'm totally amazed that their condoms perform so poorly, after all, when they fail, it looks bad on them and then our underage daughters are directed by the schools to go have an abortion. What? You say Planned Parenthood makes $350 million dollars a year on abortions? That's amazing!
What a scam. I'm going to try that one in a different way. I'm going to sell schools an ink pen that leaks. Then, when the students' clothes get covered in ink, they can come to my dry cleaner stores which I will have next to every high school. Smart thinking huh?
Yep, those Planned Parenthood folks sure are smart cookies. Oh wait, what's this? From Planned Parenthood South Central new York:
"Abstinence
How it works: Choosing not to have any sex play with a partner.
Effectiveness: 100% (if used correctly)"
If used correctly? How do you use abstinence incorrectly? I feel my knuckles starting to drag. I must be one of those "right-wing nut-jobs" who doesn't believe in eevolootion you read so much about.
Let's look at some of their other stats:
Male condom 85 - 98%, Female condom 79 - 95%
Diaphragm: 84 - 94%; Cap: 71 - 86%, Shield: 85%
Spermicide: 71 - 82%
Hmm, let me contemplate this one now. by "effectiveness" they are of course referring to a statement that might read something like "resulting in a pregnancy". After all, if the condom wasn't "effective", it doesn't just mean that the girl says "aww shucks, it didn't work". It means a baby in the belly.
So, think about those stats, and imagine them in a different way. Let's say I give you a gun.
Oh no!!! He said "gun"! Call the PC police!
Now imagine I give you a bullet to put in that gun, and then I say, "spin the chamber, put it up to your head and pull the trigger". You would say "yeah right fruitcake, don't think so! Yet we're okay with Planned Parenthood giving our children "birth control" which is guaranteed to fail 3 out of 10 times" No, let me rephrase that, "guaranteed to result in the pregnancy of our daughters 3 out of 10 times?"
Remember, these are the same people who say:
"Abstinence
How it works: Choosing not to have any sex play with a partner.
Effectiveness: 100% (if used correctly)"
Now that's like saying if I give you a gun but don't give you any bullets, you will still manage to blow your head off.
Back to the article on England. They say:
"Teenage pregnancy rates are now higher than they were in 1995. Pregnancies among girls under 16 - below the age of consent - are also at the highest level since 1998."
It took them 14 years to realize the huge mistake they have made. Countless young girls used for what I would call their 'great sex experiment', or as critics of the program over there call it the "Teenage Abortion Strategy".
What's going to be their strategy now?
"They have called for a redoubling of efforts to persuade young girls to use contraception."
They are saying to the parents of England "you people shut up about abstinence already, we're going to experiment on your daughters for another 14 years. We'll let you know how it turns out."
The nut job Ann Furedi, of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service stated:
"The fact that teenagers felt able to end their pregnancy in abortion is actually a positive sign."
She probably said that with a straight face, with other nut jobs applauding. I apologize to all the nuts out there. I really do like peanuts, so it's an insult to compare them to psychotic people like these pro-aborts.
It gets better...well, worse:
"A Department of Health spokesman said: 'One of the key aims of this Government, as set out in the Sexual Health and Teenage Pregnancy Strategies, is to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and consequently abortions, through better access to contraception."
What was that about Abstinence again?
Oh yeah:
How it works: Choosing not to have any sex play with a partner.
Effectiveness: 100% (if used correctly)"
I wonder if they have a manual for that?
Peter
Pro-Life Unity
United we stand ~ Divided they die
Pass it on
Categories:
Abortion,
Pro-Life,
Pro-Life News,
Pro-Life Unity
Tags:
abortion pastor christian catholic prolifenews prolifeunity barack obama star parker peter shinn george tiller call for life scott klusendorf organized for life england
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Mother's Day
Happy Mother's Day to all the wonderful women who are mothering children!! May your day be bright with memories new and old.
Whether by body or heart, what a blessing you are to be a mother!
Whether by body or heart, what a blessing you are to be a mother!
Thursday, May 7, 2009
week five of development
Find this and more information at pregnancy.org
• First heartbeats begin - If you have an early ultrasound you may not be able to recognize this tiny being as a baby, but there is no mistaking what it feels like seeing your child's heartbeat on that screen. That rhythmic beat is echoed in your own heart.
• Umbilical cord develops - This is your baby's lifeline in utero. It bears the responsibility of pumping in oxygen, removing waste, and supplying the necessary nutrients for the remainder of your pregnancy.
• Blood is now pumping - All four heart chambers are now functioning, insuring your baby's body will receive all it needs over not only the remainder of your pregnancy but throughout life.
• Most other organs begin to develop - Your infant's lungs start to appear, along with her brain. Already your little one is preparing for a quest for lifelong learning!
• Arm and leg buds appear - While they may not appear to be much at this stage it is ok to dream of the future. Just imagine your ballerina twirling and jumping around your kitchen floor. Or perhaps you will have the precocious boy that throws the perfect pitch -- right through the neighbor's window.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
What is happening immediately after conception?
Read more about the developing fetus where this came from... Pregnancy.org
And a great, short video of conception to birth can be found here.
Weeks one through four :
• Ovulation occurs - The time is right; now you just need this egg to be fertilized!
• Conception occurs - Did you know that during your pregnancy that your uterus will increase its capacity by 1000 times?!
• Gender is determined - Immediately upon fertilization your little one is set as a boy or a girl. Ladies, this is one that you can't take credit for since it is up to the sperm to determine the sex of your baby. Sperm carries either a "X" (girl) chromosome or a "Y" (boy) chromosome. (*Hint:* You will have to hold off on picking out the pink or blue until at least the second trimester when the gender will be visible via ultrasound.)
• Implantation - Some spotting (also known as implantation bleeding) may occur about 10 - 14 days after conception. You may believe you are starting your period but generally this bleeding is extremely light and lasts only a day or so.
• Neural tube forms - It will develop into the nervous system (Brain, spinal cord, hair, and skin). Already your baby has the foundation for thought, senses, feeling, and more!
• Heart and primitive circulatory system rapidly form - While still in its beginning stages, this is the very life support system that will carry your child throughout his or her life.
And a great, short video of conception to birth can be found here.
Weeks one through four :
• Ovulation occurs - The time is right; now you just need this egg to be fertilized!
• Conception occurs - Did you know that during your pregnancy that your uterus will increase its capacity by 1000 times?!
• Gender is determined - Immediately upon fertilization your little one is set as a boy or a girl. Ladies, this is one that you can't take credit for since it is up to the sperm to determine the sex of your baby. Sperm carries either a "X" (girl) chromosome or a "Y" (boy) chromosome. (*Hint:* You will have to hold off on picking out the pink or blue until at least the second trimester when the gender will be visible via ultrasound.)
• Implantation - Some spotting (also known as implantation bleeding) may occur about 10 - 14 days after conception. You may believe you are starting your period but generally this bleeding is extremely light and lasts only a day or so.
• Neural tube forms - It will develop into the nervous system (Brain, spinal cord, hair, and skin). Already your baby has the foundation for thought, senses, feeling, and more!
• Heart and primitive circulatory system rapidly form - While still in its beginning stages, this is the very life support system that will carry your child throughout his or her life.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Hope for the hopeless
Today is Monday. Like any other Monday, chores, bills, errands, and a game of catch-up are on my to do list.
Chores: laundry, dishes, picking up around the house. These are all important, but my girls are playing by themselves because I don't have time for them.
Bills: very important and necessary as a good steward of my money I should pay all who I owe, but there are hungry or hurting people that I forgot about on my mission to complete my to do list.
Errands: also necessary, the book I needed from the library is in high demand and would be gone if I didn't pick it up today, but there were people affected by the storms that could have used my help today.
Catch-up: always a game I play, though I never find it enjoyable. Where could I volunteer my time? After all, those dust bunnies will still be there tomorrow.
Let us not forget to stop, breathe, and pray today. What does God have on our to do list for us?
Chores: laundry, dishes, picking up around the house. These are all important, but my girls are playing by themselves because I don't have time for them.
Bills: very important and necessary as a good steward of my money I should pay all who I owe, but there are hungry or hurting people that I forgot about on my mission to complete my to do list.
Errands: also necessary, the book I needed from the library is in high demand and would be gone if I didn't pick it up today, but there were people affected by the storms that could have used my help today.
Catch-up: always a game I play, though I never find it enjoyable. Where could I volunteer my time? After all, those dust bunnies will still be there tomorrow.
Let us not forget to stop, breathe, and pray today. What does God have on our to do list for us?
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Miscarriage hope
I found this on Jill Stanek's site.
Miscarriage from a Christian perspective
by Bethany Kerr
Jill received an email recently from a woman who has written a book to encourage and support mothers grieving after miscarriage. If you have gone through a loss, this may be for you.
From the email...
"I wanted to share my personal story with you and hope that you will help me in sharing it with others.
This year (2009) didn't start out to be good for our family. On February 6th, I suffered my second miscarriage in less than two years and lost a baby girl at almost 3 months from an extra x chromosome problem 47,xx, +15 resulting in trisomy and not capable of fetal survival. After going through the darkest hours of my life for several weeks, I prayed for God to heal my heart again.
Then the strangest thing happened. I got the "calling" at 1:30 in the morning and knew that God was talking to me. I started writing privately for myself and, at the same time, felt a need to reach out to others. I wasn't sure how that could be possible considering my life was turned upside down.
This book will help parents who have lost children through miscarriage, those who have died after birth, infertility and supporting family members including the heroic husbands that see their wives through this. It talks about our story, loss, recovery, hope and healing. I wanted to "pay it forward" to help others in positive memory of the two babies we lost. It is like a hug from a stranger who cares and understands their pain and sorrow. There are limited resources available and I would like to make a difference in this area for families.
It is my (long-term) goal to donate as many free copies as possible to miscarriage support organizations, pregnancy care centers, hospitals and other places that I am researching. When new parents leave most hospitals, they are sent home with new infant care bags. Often, with the loss of a child, the families leave empty handed with nothing, as I did on both occasions. With giving them a small gesture such as a book, they have support from someone who has walked in their shoes.
The front cover has some wooden ABC blocks pictured and the title "Surviving Miscarriage From A Christian Perspective." The back cover is more symbolic than I ever imagined. They say that different things can symbolize babies who have passed such as butterflies, dragonflies, snowflakes and rosebuds that haven't opened. I found a design that had two butterflies stacked on top of one another. It was exactly what I was looking for.
Miscarriage From A Christian Perspective can be previewed/purchased at www.lulu.com. Please type in Lisa Lindley or the title. In a few weeks this will also be available at online retail outlets such as Amazon.com and a few others. My ISBN# 978-0-578-01853-9
Surviving Miscarriage From A Christian Perspective is a heartfelt account of one mother's experience coping with miscarriage, loss, recovery and spiritual awakening. This book was written to comfort those in need and to offer hope, strength and healing through a Christian viewpoint.
"Faith in God is what helped me to survive this experience. I hope that my story will touch your life or someone that you love and give them healing."
- Lisa Lindley
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. - Matthew 5:4
Thank you!
My website: www.smallestwingsofhope.faithweb.com "
Miscarriage from a Christian perspective
by Bethany Kerr
Jill received an email recently from a woman who has written a book to encourage and support mothers grieving after miscarriage. If you have gone through a loss, this may be for you.
From the email...
"I wanted to share my personal story with you and hope that you will help me in sharing it with others.
This year (2009) didn't start out to be good for our family. On February 6th, I suffered my second miscarriage in less than two years and lost a baby girl at almost 3 months from an extra x chromosome problem 47,xx, +15 resulting in trisomy and not capable of fetal survival. After going through the darkest hours of my life for several weeks, I prayed for God to heal my heart again.
Then the strangest thing happened. I got the "calling" at 1:30 in the morning and knew that God was talking to me. I started writing privately for myself and, at the same time, felt a need to reach out to others. I wasn't sure how that could be possible considering my life was turned upside down.
This book will help parents who have lost children through miscarriage, those who have died after birth, infertility and supporting family members including the heroic husbands that see their wives through this. It talks about our story, loss, recovery, hope and healing. I wanted to "pay it forward" to help others in positive memory of the two babies we lost. It is like a hug from a stranger who cares and understands their pain and sorrow. There are limited resources available and I would like to make a difference in this area for families.
It is my (long-term) goal to donate as many free copies as possible to miscarriage support organizations, pregnancy care centers, hospitals and other places that I am researching. When new parents leave most hospitals, they are sent home with new infant care bags. Often, with the loss of a child, the families leave empty handed with nothing, as I did on both occasions. With giving them a small gesture such as a book, they have support from someone who has walked in their shoes.
The front cover has some wooden ABC blocks pictured and the title "Surviving Miscarriage From A Christian Perspective." The back cover is more symbolic than I ever imagined. They say that different things can symbolize babies who have passed such as butterflies, dragonflies, snowflakes and rosebuds that haven't opened. I found a design that had two butterflies stacked on top of one another. It was exactly what I was looking for.
Miscarriage From A Christian Perspective can be previewed/purchased at www.lulu.com. Please type in Lisa Lindley or the title. In a few weeks this will also be available at online retail outlets such as Amazon.com and a few others. My ISBN# 978-0-578-01853-9
Surviving Miscarriage From A Christian Perspective is a heartfelt account of one mother's experience coping with miscarriage, loss, recovery and spiritual awakening. This book was written to comfort those in need and to offer hope, strength and healing through a Christian viewpoint.
"Faith in God is what helped me to survive this experience. I hope that my story will touch your life or someone that you love and give them healing."
- Lisa Lindley
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. - Matthew 5:4
Thank you!
My website: www.smallestwingsofhope.faithweb.com "
Friday, May 1, 2009
Souter to read Freedom of Choice Act into Congress
And who is running our country??? Click here to find out.
Here is a briefing:
Regarding Souter’s tenure on the Court, Americans United for Life Senior Counsel Clarke D. Forsythe stated, “Justice David Souter is one of the most pro-abortion members of the United States Supreme Court. During his tenure, Justice Souter voted to uphold abortion on demand and to strike down common sense abortion regulations that the vast majority of Americans support. He voted in 2000 and again in 2007 to strike down prohibitions on the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. As many votes on abortion have been 5-4 decisions, his presence on the Court has extended the tragedy of abortion by restricting the right of states to make their own decisions on abortion law.”
Here is a briefing:
Regarding Souter’s tenure on the Court, Americans United for Life Senior Counsel Clarke D. Forsythe stated, “Justice David Souter is one of the most pro-abortion members of the United States Supreme Court. During his tenure, Justice Souter voted to uphold abortion on demand and to strike down common sense abortion regulations that the vast majority of Americans support. He voted in 2000 and again in 2007 to strike down prohibitions on the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. As many votes on abortion have been 5-4 decisions, his presence on the Court has extended the tragedy of abortion by restricting the right of states to make their own decisions on abortion law.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
