What cave has Megan Kelly been dwelling in? It was crystal clear to just about everyone that Bart Stupak was taking pro lifers for a ride to garner support for the health care bill. He told his constituents that he’d vote for the healthcare bill whether it covered abortion or not and then pretended to care about the issue of abortion in a case of brilliant political grandstanding. All the media’s attention was on Mr. Stupak as he wove his tangled web and then showed his filthy hand.
Well, that’s not my point really. Pay close attention to the video below at 53 seconds. The Health and Human Services Dept. of our government, headed by abortion proponent Kathleen Sebelious, gives us more of the same double speak we’ve been getting from every proponent of the health care bill. They say, abortions will “not” be covered in the federal high risk insurance plans “except in the cases of…” Wait. Stop right there. So, abortions will be covered. Period. What’s the reason for this kind of in your face deceit and double speak? Do they really think we are idiots? Do they think we are blind idiots? I have to say, they probably think even worse of us. They lie to our faces and then taunt us with the truth because they do not believe we have the zeal or the resources to confront them. This is an abuse of power.
When our government’s officials believe they can get away with saying absurd things like: “abortions will not be covered by any federal (taxpayer) dollars except when we decide to cover them…” we should be alarmed.
And what of the near complete lack of truly journalistic coverage of this? When we see this kind of poor, confusing, journalism we should be appropriately offended. More still when we see it regarding something as serious as abortion. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate Megan Kelly. I just wish she’d apply her talents to digging deep on this issue. It seems that everywhere we look in the news media, every one is missing the point.
Bottom line: We should be alarmed. Are you alarmed? If you are, what are you going to do about it? Or, what are you already doing about it? I’d love to hear. I’m hoping to hear from some young pro-lifers who are ready to commit their life to the cause of defending pre-born children with their intellect and resources, and who are committed to speaking out when our government attempts to subdue us with hazy language and double speak.
The White House is pushing Kenya’s government to adopt a new constitution that will legalize abortion in the African nation. The only restrictions to abortion would be the approval of a “trained health professional”. Such a vague restriction will surely open the door for abortion on demand much like the current situation in America.
Someone, Kenyans need to know who, drafted this constitution, and saw fit to include the worst kind of “double-speak” (to coin an Orwellian phrase) possible.
“Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues director Marie Smith told LifeNews.com, “Regrettably, this final draft contains some of the most deceptive and dangerous language on abortion ever seen in a constitution.”
“It presents constitutional protection for the unborn child by acknowledging in section 26 on Right to Life that ‘Every person has the right to life’ and that ‘The life of a person begins at conception,’” she explained. ”However, the next statement completely reverses protection for the unborn by allowing abortion when in the ‘opinion of a trained health professional, there is need for emergency treatment, or the life or health of the mother is in danger, or if permitted by any other written law.’”
Did Elena Kagan write this provision? It sounds exactly like the double speak she used in her ethically questionable amending of a press release for the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology while working in the Clinton White House to further Clinton’s pro-abortion agenda. I jest, we know it wasn’t Kagan, but someone crafted this provision, who?
The pro-abortion lobby has set its sights on Kenya.
Did IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Federation) dangle money in front of the Kenyan government? With the pro-abortion lobby, ever slinking around in the shadows, anything is possible. IPPF has, in fact, been lobbying for the legalization of abortion in Kenya as far back, at least, as 2007.
While we ponder who is working to legalize abortion in Kenya, we know for certain that the White House has dangled money in front of the Kenyan government. And we know of the President’s aggressive support of abortion rights.
The Vice President had this to say in a speech he gave in Kenya last month:
“The United States strongly supports the process of constitutional reform. … Dare to reach for trans formative change, the kind of change that might come around only once in a lifetime,” he said. ”If you make these changes, I promise you, new foreign private investment will come in like you’ve never seen,” Biden added.
Leave it to Vice President Biden to dangle money so blatantly. Of course, the new constitution doesn’t have mainly to do with the legalization of abortion, there are other significant changes, but the legalization of abortion will transform the face of this nation, for the worse, as it has transformed ours.
Is this the Obama administration’s idea reducing the number of abortions worldwide? Or was that campaign rhetoric that won the naive favor of so many evangelicals only intended for domestic purposes?
Whatever is going on here, someone, and I think we know who, aims to invest and reap from the blood of Kenya’s children. May God in His mercy stop them.
Pro Life opposition to President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee has been robust over the past few weeks. And the continual revelations of just how radical Elena Kagan’s views on abortion are, are breathtaking.
But will it matter if her appointment is defeated and the President is sent back to the drawing board to find another appointee? After all, the trip back to the drawing board would only be a formality. Another appointee, with similar radical views on abortion, we can be sure, lies waiting in the wings, or the in the West Wing, we should say.
My opinion: Yes. It matters tremendously if Elena Kagan is denied entrance to the High Court. I hope that she never darkens the doors of the Supreme Court, and I do mean “darkens”. If the pro-life opposition can successfully expose the truth about Elena Kagan’s radical views we will have won a significant battle on behalf of pre-born children. Few issues are more important than this one. This is the right kind of issue to deny an appointee entrance to the Supreme Court over.
Let’s send President Obama back the drawing board again and again until he finally appoints someone who reveres the sanctity of human life at all stages.
As for Elena Kagan, she is not that appointee. Here’s her defense of what is commonly known as Partial Birth Abortion while working in the Clinton Administration. Kagan tampered with a medical statement from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology regarding their findings that Partial Birth Abortion was never the “only” means necessary to preserve the life or health of a mother. The ACOG actually, shockingly, (Kagan is not a medical Doctor) accepted her revisions to their statement and published a lie to stop legislation that would have banned Partial Birth Abortion (also known as Intact D & X). ACOG is a pro abortion organization.
For those wondering what Partial Birth Abortion is… Click here. And here’s a description from the pro abortion American Medical Association:
(1) The term ‘partial birth abortion’ is not a medical term. The AMA will use the term “intact dilatation and extraction”(or intact D&X) to refer to a specific procedure comprised of the following elements: deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of days; instrumental or manual conversion of the fetus to a footling breech; breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of the fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus. This procedure is distinct from dilatation and evacuation (D&E) procedures more commonly used to induce abortion after the first trimester. Because ‘partial birth abortion’ is not a medical term it will not be used by the AMA.
For purposes of full disclosure I’ll add that they failed to mention that scissors are used to puncture the back of the living child’s skull and then pried open so the “Doctor” can then perform their “partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of the fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus.”
Kagan also attempted to adjust the AMA’s medical statement but she was unsuccessful. Read about that attempt here.
A Pro Life Mindset. I’m Praying For All Pregnant Moms to Think This Way.
By SethSaturday, June 26, 2010 8:18
I hope Megan doesn’t mind, but what she wrote on her blog about her pre-born baby, a little girl, gripped me as I read. Read this wonderful piece of writing here.
I’ve been reading up on the new, loosened, NIH preferred guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research and I am having trouble digesting my breakfast.
The reason I’ve been reading up is because:
“On March 9, 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13505: Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells. The executive order states that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Director of NIH, may support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, to the extent permitted by law. This is taken from the NIH website.
If I were to summarize my findings I’d say it like this as a rough draft: Clinics now have a wide open door to use the system to their monetary advantage. Human Life is once again devalued. The benefits of the strong are once again placed over the rights of the weak, in this case, the helpless children who have been developed for IVF and discarded for sundry reasons). The children who get the raw end of the deal are, once again, children with chromosomal abnormalities. In this case, they really are just the scapegoats of the supposed intellectuals. I’m referring especially to Downs Syndrome children who have become a favorite cultural target and a pleasing sacrifice to the alter of our egos. They will be, in essence, the fuel that propels this horrific research forward. Here’s a clip from the new regulations:
“Respondents noted that many embryos undergo Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD). This may result in the identification of chromosomal abnormalities that would make the embryos medically unsuitable for clinical use. In addition, the IVF process may also produce embryos that are not transferred into the uterus of a woman because they are determined to be not appropriate for clinical use. Respondents suggested that hESCs derived from such embryos may be extremely valuable for scientific study, and should be considered embryos that were created for reproductive purposes and were no longer needed for this purpose. The NIH agrees with these comments. As in the draft, the final Guidelines allow for the donation of embryos that have undergone PGD.”
Who’s to stop a clinic from developing more embryos than necessary under the guise of their intended use for In Vitro Fertilization? Who’s to stop a clinic from falsifying information regarding the “health” of embryos that may be suitable for In Vitro Fertilization? Will clinics be able to withstand the siren call of delicious compensation for their embryos? Certainly not. Call me a conspiracy theorist but we can be sure this kind of devious activity is already underway. These are all things that can happen with no one knowing about it.
Human embryos are humans. I watched with horror as the character “Ray” came to the awful discovery that the invading, hostile aliens were using the humans as fertilizer to sustain their race, in the 2005 movie re-make of War of the Worlds. But such is the mentality of our depraved and increasingly utilitarian culture. The real nightmare is when you don’t need evil aliens to do what only evil aliens should do.
How long will we find it acceptable, even thinkable, to fertilize our race with the blood of our pre-born children? They’ll tell you I’m crazy for talking this way. They’ll tell you it’s all for the benefit of mankind. But these folks have unlocked a new form of cannibalism. The question is whether we will stop it before we’re on the menu.
Should the state of Louisiana shut down in order to deal with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill?
A feminist blogger made these remarks regarding the recent legislation that sets restrictions on abortion clinics in Louisiana:
“With little fanfare and recognition, a new bill has made its way through the Louisiana Legislature. While thousands in my state have found themselves unemployed and unable to feed their families due to the effects of this oil disaster, the Louisiana legislature has found something they believe more important to focus on: abortion.”
If that were the case I would stand up and cheer. I can, perhaps, in the moment, only think of one disastrous circumstance more urgent and awful than the gulf coast oil spill. That would be abortion. That would also be the current neutrality and ambivalence toward abortion in our nation.
Does the flow of oil need to be stopped, urgently? Yes. Unquestionably. This is a disaster and it is urgent. Does the flow of the blood of innocent pre-born children need to stopped? Yes. Unquestionably. It is a disaster of far greater proportions and of far greater consequence to human life and liberty.
While there are fewer and fewer things the Louisiana legislature can do to cap the underwater oil flow as the federal government continues to interrupt and delay the response, not to mention President Obama’s denying help from other nations to clean up the spill, should they cease other activities? Or just the ones that fly in the face of the feminist, environmentalist, dialectical materialist agenda?
Typically, I would not respond to an unknown feminist blog, (anymore than they would respond to an unknown pro-life blog), but I think this may be an accusation we see leveled at Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal at a much higher level in the coming weeks. We should stand prepared to answer this kind of critique as it is baseless and false.
By In folklore, shapeshifting is when an individual has the ability to alter their physical appearance. Politically speaking, Charlie Crist is a shapeshifter.
If pro-lifers have learned anything from Florida governor Charlie Crist, it is that our hope cannot be in politicians. Crist is currently running for Florida senate as an independent, on his campaign website it previously said, “Governor Crist believes strongly in the sanctity of life. While Attorney General, Charlie Crist worked with Governor Bush to successfully defend Florida’s Parental Notification law.” These pro-life actions were apparently not because of Crist’s pro-life convictions, but it seems, rather, out of a desire to get pro-life votes.
This week that message was removed from his campaign website as he is seeking to garner votes from democrats and independents. According to Newsmax.com: “When he was a Republican trying to win the Republican primary, Crist repeatedly stated he was pro-life and even said he would fight for pro-life legislation if he’s elected to the Senate.”
Americanthinker.com offers this analysis:
Former Republican, ex-pro-life advocate Charlie Crist must want that senate seat so badly he is willing to abandon both conviction and conscience. Governor Crist stands ready to fight for the right to keep the image of a baby, peacefully curled in the fetal position inside the womb, from it’s mother eyes, heart and conscience. A picture so truthful it possesses the power to change minds and deter ignorant choices…Uninformed voters hold immense promise in elections for politicians that support life when convenient, but who willingly place innocent infants on the altar of abortion, exchanging live offerings for votes bought with blood.
In some other folklore, once a shapeshifter has changed form, it becomes progressively more difficult to return to their original state. This is now officially Charlie Crist’s problem. Everyone knows he’s just another shapeshifting politician.
The Miami Herald has a story regarding the decision Governor Charlie Christ has as to whether he should veto a piece of legislation that requires women to view an ultrasound if they want an abortion.
Bills like this are popping up all over the country. Many state congressional bodies are passing measures that require women to view an ultrasound if they want an abortion. In the case of the current Florida measure, the bill seems only to require that women see an ultrasound in their first trimester if they want an abortion. The measure also makes an exception for women who can prove they were victims of rape, incest, or domestic violence (the domestic violence clause seems odd to me).
Odder still is the fact that most media outlets call these bills “anti-abortion”. The bill does not outlaw abortion, or restrict it in any way. So we have to ask why they’re calling this an anti-abortion bill?
It seems that the pro-abortion lobby, in too many cases, a lobby that is embedded in media outlets, believes that a woman seeing her child via ultrasound will change her mind about abortion. There must be results with ultrasound that are contrary to what the abortion lobby wants to see. Would they oppose these pieces of legislation otherwise?
A young woman named Abby Johnson, a former director of a Planned Parenthood, testified this way as she watched an abortion happen via ultrasound:
‘When I was working at Planned Parenthood I was extremely pro-choice,” Johnson told FoxNews.com. But after seeing the internal workings of the procedure for the first time on an ultrasound monitor, “I would say there was a definite conversion in my heart … a spiritual conversion.”
Ultrasound gives the mother, and anyone else watching, a window into the womb, and a display of the little life inside the womb, and in Abby Johnson’s case, it completely changed her mind. Keep in mind, she wasn’t even the one having the abortion. She was the one making her money off of the abortion.
What the abortion lobby is opposing in the case of these pieces of legislation, is the truth. It is a rare head case that will simply allow a doctor to go in to their body and begin cutting things out without knowing what exactly is going in in there. Why would someone demand ignorance when it comes to a question about life? Isn’t it because deep down they know the pre-born child is really a living child?
These are not anti-abortion bills, they are pro-truth bills. They are pieces of legislation that say: We will not turn the blind eye on this issue, we will not smell the burning flesh, see the smoke pouring from the chimneys, hear the wretched cries for mercy, and go on living like hundreds of thousands of innocent humans aren’t being executed. If you will willingly live with an execution camp in your back yard, we will walk you up to the fence, next to the gas chambers, and make you look inside.
A nun named Margret McBride, upon the recommendation of a doctor, authorized an abortion as a treatment for a young woman suffering from pulmonary hypertension. The nun has been excommunicated from the catholic church by her former bishop because of her decision. As ABC covers the story they claim that this Nun saved the mother’s life. The controversy surrounding the event is the Bishop’s decision to excommunicate this nun. But, is that truly the point of controversy?
In ABC’s own link to the definition, diagnosis, and prescribed treatment of pulmonary hypertension, pregnancy is listed as a possible cause of pulmonary hypertension but abortion is strangely not listed as a treatment. In another write up on the condition, pregnancy isn’t even listed as a cause. Another says that pregnancy is not recommended for people with pulmonary hypertension but it does not prescribe abortion as a treatment. That last article does say that PH can endanger the life of both the mother and the child, but I’m certain it isn’t referencing abortion when it speaks of endangering the life of the child.
All too often, tragically I think, abortion is wrongly (I mean that in both the medical and ethical sense) prescribed as a treatment for women with varying medical conditions. I am not a doctor but it seems that abortion was not the only way to save this mother’s life. Of course, ABC would have us believe that to be the case, but the evidence seems scant. Something isn’t adding up here.
From Malcom Muggeridge’s essay “The Humane Holocaust” taken from the book “Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation” by President Ronald Reagan.
As Muggeridge expounds on the utilitarian vision of the surgeons of his day you will hear the similar sound of the pro-abortion chorus in our day. Think of the fact the over 90 percent of children diagnosed with or thought to have Down’s Syndrome are killed through abortion and you will shudder at Muggeridge’s prophetic words:
“No more sick or misshapen bodies, no more disturbed or twisted minds, no more hereditary idiots or mongoloid children. Babies not up to scratch would be destroyed, before or after birth, as would also the old beyond repair. With the developing skills of modern medicine, the human race could be pruned and carefully tended until only the perfect blooms-the beauty queens, the mensa I.Q.’s, the athletes-remained. Then at last, with rigid population control to prevent the good work being ruined by excessive numbers, affliction would be ended, and maybe death itself abolished, and men become, not just like gods, but in their perfect mortality, very God.
Against this vision of life without tears in a fleshly paradise, stands the Christian vision of mankind as a family whose loving father is God. Here, the symbol is not the perfected body, the pruned vine, the weeded garden, but a striken body nailed to a cross, signifying affliction, not as the enemy of life, but as it’s greatest enhancement and teacher. In an army preparing for battle the unfit are indeed discarded, but in a Christian family the handicapped are particularly cherished, and give special joy to those who cherish them.
What vision are we for? On the one hand, as a pattern of our collective existence, the broiler house or factory farm, in which the concern is solely for the physical well being of the livestock and the financial well being of the enterprise; on the other, mankind as a family, all of whose members, whatever physical or mental qualities or deficiencies they may have, are equally deserving of consideration in the eyes of their creator, and whose existence has validity, not just in itself, nor just in relation to history, but in relation to a destiny reaching beyond time and into eternity.
Or, in simple terms, on the one hand, the quality of life; on the other, the sanctity of life.”