TOP LINKS
8:23 pm
Finally on YouTube: Lila Rose’s 2009 FRC Summit Speech
This speech was given September, 2009 in Washington, DC at the Omni Shoreham Hotel. Lila Rose is the President of Live Action. Learn more about Lila Rose: http://liveaction.org/lila-rose
Please feel free to pass on! Lila will be speaking once again at the 2010 FRC Values Voter Summit in Washington DC. Learn more about this event here at http://www.valuesvotersummit.org/
Popularity: 2% [?]
6:21 am
Why No Annual Report from Planned Parenthood?
My thought at the moment is, what is Planned Parenthood hiding? The latest annual report on their website is their “Annual Report 2008,” which covers operating dates between 1/1/2007 and 12/31/2007. This means that the latest report from Planned Parenthood covers a period that ended over two and a half years ago.
It should not take Planned Parenthood a year and a half to prepare the next annual report, which would cover dates 1/1/2008 to 12/31/2008. They also hold tens of millions of dollars in cash according to their IRS filings so it isn’t like they don’t have the resources to produce an annual report. So what gives? Is their data something that they are trying to hide? Are they done releasing annual reports because they do not want to face the criticism they receive every time they announce new abortion numbers?
You can check this out for yourself by clicking on the image below which takes you to the annual report page on Planned Parenthood’s website.
Anybody have any theories why Planned Parenthood is waiting so long to report on all that they are up to? Aren’t they proud of the 300,000+ human abortions they do every year in the United States?
Popularity: 3% [?]
12:00 am
NARAL (Really) Upset On The Success Of CPC’s
NARAL recently issued an information package called “Unmasking the Fake Clinics” found at their site here.
They basically present a “study” on the “damage” to the pro-choice culture caused by CPC’s, or Crisis Pregnancy Centers, especially in California.
Paragraph after paragraph you can read all about how they “mislead” women into not killing the pre-born baby, putting the baby up for adoption, etc.
They go to lengths to mention these Centers are run mostly by volunteers and not professional medical personnel, ad also that these Centers are funded by conservative Christian groups for the most part.
Instead of being upset, I was actually amused at their efforts. However, they are setting the groundwork to ban these Centers or to make them post signs outside that they don’t offer contraception or abortions, like here and here.
They are afraid.
Afraid not only that overwhelming scientific data proves that life starts at conception, but that their clientele, generations Y and Millenniala are not buying into their lies.
They try to prove in their study how the CPC’s coerce women not to have abortions. If anything, a CPC will guide women in such a fragile state to make a decision without pressure, but with all the facts, so they really know what is happening to their bodies, and inside their bodies.
I should point out that even though most Centers are run by volunteers, not any Joe out of the street can provide an ultrasound. This has to be done by a licensed person., unlike some abortion clinics like here.
Also, note how they despise the fact that the Centers run without any federal/state or other governmental aid. It is the community pulling together to help those most vulnerable amongst us.
Last, they criticize the CPC’s for informing people that abortion and contraception cause cancer, infertility and depression, saying it is all a lie.
Are they actually saying the CDC is lying here?
Or the National Institute of Health here? and here?
I could go on and on, especially in the ABC Link. But I suggest that you read the article by NARAL, and think about who really the propagandist is, and what their motives are.
Or are they that upset that Other People’s Choice is not their kind of choice?
Popularity: 2% [?]
7:26 pm
Abortions and Ice Cream: A Personal Preference Issue?
Young Lia Mills answer this question…
Lia became well-known after giving the following speech on abortion last year:
Popularity: 2% [?]
2:55 pm
TV COVERAGE: Live Action President Lila Rose Leads Pro-Life Training in Indiana
INC Now reports on Live Action President Lila Rose training
The other lecturer was a recent UCLA graduate named Lila Rose.
Rose is nationally known for her work as the President of Live Action, a pro-life new media organization she founded when she was a teenager.
Rose spoke at length about her work uncovering illegal activities at Planned Parenthood and about the fact that images make movements.
Rose said just like the American Civil Rights Movement, which used graphic images of mutilated and lynched African-Americans, the Pro-Life Movement should use graphic pictures and video of what she calls, the victims of abortion.
“When people know the truth about what abortion does to a human child, how women are negatively affected by abortion, what abortion clinics do to communities because of the way they cover up sex abuse for instance of sex abuse victims, then people come to a conclusion in their hearts and minds that this is not something they want in their communities,” Live Action President Lila Rose said.
Watch the video coverage and read the full story here.
Popularity: 2% [?]
3:49 am
Pro-Life Advocates Protest Against Planned Parenthood Aborting Children
CBN has coverage of right-to-life advocates standing up against Planned Parenthood and the abortion indusry in Virginia:
A coalition of pro-life advocates from across southeastern Virginia recently gathered in front of a new Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Va. to raise their voices together opposing abortions.
Popularity: 2% [?]
4:36 am
The Lesser Evil? A Surprising Argument From England
It is always interesting to follow debates in places other than America. Often, other countries can be more enlightened, or simply provide an alternate perspective on an issue. In Great Britain’s case, our shared language and culture often lead to exchanges in philosophies and political attitudes. That’s what makes Antonia Senior’s op-ed “Yes, Abortion is Killing. But It’s the Lesser Evil,” which appeared in the London Times, so interesting. It provides a glimpse into what very well may be the future of the abortion debate.
The article is gaining considerable attention in the pro-life community because of its candor and honesty. Senior presents herself as a once blind adherent to the pro-abortion party line, shouting its catch phrases and following the movement without question. However, she says, when she had children, her perspective changed, as she realized that her daughter was “unmistakingly herself, her own person—forged in [Senior’s] womb, not by [Senior's] mothering.” She states that a fetus is life “by any subjective measure.”
You would think that these revelations would lead Senior to a more pro-life stance. However, she takes it even a step further and says that the “nearly 200,000 aborted babies in the UK every year are the lesser evil,” because “you cannot separate women’s rights from their right to fertility control.” Why do I believe this to be the future of the debate? Because, over time, more and more people will realize the truth that life begins at conception. It has been scientifically confirmed over and over. After that, a new rationale will have to be found. Luckily, this is even easier to counter, thanks to the new feminism that is spreading throughout the country. People like Janet Smith know better (see especially “Abortion as a Feminist Concern”), understanding that women have inherent dignity that is not derived from a freedom to kill the unborn. I believe Senior’s admission can only help the pro-life cause, as more pro-abortion advocates are forced to admit that they are advocating murder.
On a related note, I wonder what Senior would think of the over 100 million girls that have been killed due to preference for male children, many of them the victims of abortion (the link is to an article in The Economist—sign up for a temporary pass to read the article). The Economist uses the term “Gendercide” to underscore the destruction of unborn and baby women in the East. Something tells me that the dearth of women in China and Northern India will not help out women’s rights in those countries, even though women have full access to abortion. This is just one way the myth of abortion as feminism is displaced. Hopefully Senior’s article is a sign of debates to come, when we can shift from arguing about whether a fetus is alive and begin making meaningful progress towards the other myths of the pro-abortion side. The thought of sacrificing a third of our youngest generation for any cause, even one as important as women’s rights, should be enough to turn one’s stomach.
Popularity: 2% [?]
12:26 pm
“Why I Volunteer at Planned Parenthood”
In the beginning it was difficult for me to grasp the idea why anyone would want to volunteer at a Planned Parenthood. That question always came to my mind when I saw the men and women at the clinics with a blue jacket that says “Volunteer.”
At the local Planned Parenthood there are volunteers who wait in the parking lot with a cup of coffee in one hand and the other arm is free waiting to assist a young woman into the clinic. I began to think about why they were doing this. I looked at Planned Parenthood`s website and found a section called, “Why I Volunteer at Planned Parenthood.”
I realized that those men and woman have bought into the lies that Planned Parenthood feeds them through the media: that they are actually benefiting and doing good to the woman and that the unborn are just a choice rather than a human being with inalienable rights.
Here is one account of a perspective from a women who volunteers at a Planned Parent:
Popularity: 3% [?]
12:37 pm
Elena Kagan’s Partial Birth Abortion Distortion
Shannen Coffin dropped a bombshell on the Elena Kagan confirmation hearings, bringing to light the fact that Kagan manipulated the findings of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) to get a partial-birth abortion ban overturned. Basically, what we know now is that ACOG stated that partial-birth abortion “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.” It turns out that the original opinion of ACOG was the exact opposite, and the revised language in the panel findings was written by Elena Kagan herself, to help make the case for partial-birth abortion. ACOG is supposedly a nonpartisan physicians’ group, but clearly, they were convinced to push a pro-abortion agenda.
Yuval Levin sums up the Kagan controversy:
It seems that the most important statement in the famous position paper of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists—a 1996 document that was central to the case of partial-birth-abortion defenders for the subsequent decade and played a major role in a number of court cases and political battles—was drafted not by an impartial committee of physicians, as both ACOG and the pro-abortion lobby claimed for years, but by Elena Kagan, who was then the deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy.
Kagan saw ACOG’s original paper, which did not include the claim that partial-birth abortion “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman,” but, on the contrary, said that ACOG “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” She wrote a memo to two White House colleagues noting that this language would be “a disaster” for the cause of partial-birth abortion, and she then set out to do something about it. In notes released by the White House it now looks as though Kagan herself—a senior Clinton White House staffer with no medical background—proposed the “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman” language, and sent it to ACOG, which then included that language in its final statement.
Ed Morrissey actually has a screen shot of the edits Kagan made in her own handwriting:
Kagan did eventually reluctantly admit that the handwriting in the memo is hers when questioned by Orrin Hatch.
Orrin Hatch raised the question bluntly: “Did you write that memo?” After some dancing around, Kagan finally admitted, “The document is certainly in my handwriting,” but then said that what she was trying to do was to make sure the document from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists accurately reflected their views.
As Stacy McCain pointed out, that reasoning is questionable. Why would ACOG need to be coordinating their statement with the White House before it was released if there was not a pro-abortion agenda being advanced? Elena Kagan wasn’t trying to make sure it accurately reflected ACOG’s views, she was making sure they didn’t do harm to the abortion movement. ACOG originally couldn’t identify a single set of circumstances where partial-birth abortion was medically necessary (sorry, abortion fanatics, hate to say I told you so, but… ), and Kagan wouldn’t accept that. She lied, ACOG went along with it, and science and medicine were grossly distorted. This is a huge scientific deception, and she should be held accountable.
This incident shows that she clearly is not fit to serve on the Supreme Court. It has now been proved that Elena Kagan is willing to undermine the truth, lie, and manipulate the truth in order to advance her own agenda. It shouldn’t make a difference whether or not the issue at play is abortion. Elena Kagan is clearly willing to lie and misrepresent the truth, and that’s unacceptable in a Supreme Court justice. Unacceptable.
The language she wrote was the specific language cited by the Supreme Court in their ruling to overturn the partial-birth abortion ban. The ruling was made on a lie, because Elena Kagan didn’t like the politically inconvenient fact that there is no medical reason to ever perform a partial-birth abortion. ACOG acknowledged this themselves in a supposedly objective panel, and Kagan didn’t like the truth. So she lied. She lied to the Supreme Court, and so did ACOG. Shouldn’t she be brought up on charges of perjury now? She committed intentional fraud. She does not deserve to sit on the Supreme Court. This is someone who lets radical left-wing ideology make her decisions for her, regardless of what the truth is or what the facts are. Kagan was willing to lie and distort the truth so that full-term infants can be pulled out of the womb feet first, have their brains sucked out, and then their skulls crushed. It’s despicable. She not only ignored evidence, she covered it up and then changed it to what she wanted it to be. I’m repeating myself, I know, but this woman is not fit to serve on the Supreme Court.
Republicans, you now have a golden excuse to filibuster. Don’t let the opportunity pass you by, because this woman (who has no judicial experience, by the way) is not fit to be a Supreme Court justice. (To add to the evidence that she is unfit to serve, it has now come to light that she also lied to the Supreme Court in a 9/11 case!)
Powerline has a must-read on the Elena Kagan abortion distortion. The only good thing about this is that at least now we have incontrovertible proof of just how far abortion fanatics are willing to go, of how willing to lie about scientific truth they are, to push forward their agenda of death.
Others reporting:
Gateway Pundit
Liberty Pundits
Confederate Yankee
Riehl World View
Weasel Zippers
Pundit and Pundette
Popularity: 2% [?]
4:43 pm
Will Abortion Stop Being a Political Issue?
Elizabeth Landau recently posted an entry in CNN’s The Chart, posing the question:
If these doctors succeeded in making abortion more mainstream and esteemed in the medical profession, the article asks, “would the politics surrounding it finally change?”
Let’s read and understand the source of this piece. She was obtaining her information from a New York Times piece called The New Abortion Providers. On this, rather lengthy piece, Elizabeth Bazelon researches how now many Universities offer a 2 year program that follows their fellowship to sharpen their skills in abortion and contraception. This program started in UC San Francisco, and is called the Family Planning Fellowship, where they will train here or abroad, side to side with the W.H.O., especially in third world countries.
Another program is the Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program, also started in UC San Francisco. This program gives the medical schools two or three years of seed money for abortion training for OB-GYN residents. Another is the Center for Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine. These programs are not limited to UCSF, or liberal Universities. They are also in Conservative states like Utah, making the purveyors of the residency think that abortion is not only tolerated, but mainstream by conservatives as well. With these programs the founders try to keep a continuity between the older abortionists spawned by Roe v. Wade, and the younger medical students, so this practice is not lost.
According to the author, most if not all the money comes from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation. Throughout the piece, they talk about how hard it has been for the abortionists to provide this service across America, how from the 70’s clinics had to be formed, since most hospitals or practices wouldn’t do them, thus creating a cottage industry, but also an isolation that couldn’t protect doctors from being murdered by extremists because of the services provided. On and on they go about their struggles and tribulation through history, and how they feel that offering these programs they will finally be a mainstream practice, how in the same practice a doctor could remove a precancerous mole or perform first or second trimester abortions and no one will think anything of it.
The author chose her words very carefully when referring to a pre-born, calling them “pregnancy tissue” and abortion opposers “anti-choice”. She did also brush through the fact that some doctors put a self-limitation on how far along they will perform abortions – mainly to avoid seeing the baby moving on the ultrasound. She also made a note on how much better earlier abortions were, thus avoiding seeing recognizable fetal parts.
If they recognize a life is being (brutally) terminated, then, deep down they know what they are doing is intrinsically wrong. They are just providing a false escape to a woman with a deeper problem.
Returning to the author’s question: “would the politics surrounding it finally change?”
I would dare to answer: No.
No, because, in their own numbers, abortion providers have fallen 37% since the 1980’s.
No, because, even if the same lie has been told a thousand times, it does not become truth.
No, because the younger generations, the survivors of this silent holocaust get it. And through a conciliatory democratic process they will teach the older generations how to love and respect our most important treasure: Life.
Elizabeth Landau recently posted an entry in CNN’s The Chart: http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/15/theyre-not-abortion-doctors-anymore/
Posing the question:
If these doctors succeeded in making abortion more mainstream and esteemed in the medical profession, the article asks, “would the politics surrounding it finally change?”
Let’s read and understand the source of this piece.
She was obtaining her information from a New York Times piece called The New Abortion Providers: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/magazine/18abortion-t.html?_r=1
On this, rather lengthy piece, Elizabeth Bazelon researches how now many Universities, offer a 2 year program that follows their fellowship to sharpen their skills in abortion and contraception.
This program started in UC San Francisco, and is called the Family Planning Fellowship. Where they will train here or abroad, side to side with the W.H.O., especially in third world countries.
Another program is the Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program. Also started in UC San Francisco. This program gives the medical schools two or three years of seed money for abortion training for OB-GYN residents. Another, the Center for Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine.
These programs are not limited to UCSF, or liberal Universities. They are also in Conservative states like Utah. Making the purveyors of the residency think that abortion is not only tolerated, but mainstream by conservatives as well.
With these programs the founders try to keep a continuity between the older abortionists dawned by Roe v. Wade, and the younger medical students, so this practice is not lost.
According to the author, most if not all the money comes from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation.
Throughout the piece, they talk about how hard it has been for the abortionists to provide this service across America. How from the 70’s clinics had to be formed, since most hospitals or practices wouldn’t do them. Thus creating a cottage industry, but also an isolation that couldn’t protect doctors from being murdered by extremists because of the services provided.
On and on they go about their struggles and tribulation through history, and how they feel that offering these programs they will finally be a mainstream practice. How in the same practice a doctor could remove a precancerous mole or perform first or second trimester abortions and no one will think anything of it.
The author chose her words very carefully when referring to a pre-born. Calling them “pregnancy tissue”. And abortion opposers “anti-choice”.
She did also brushed through the fact that some doctors put a self-limitation on how far along they will perform abortions. Mainly to avoid seeing the baby moving on the ultrasound. Also making a note on how much better earlier abortions where, thus avoiding seeing recognizable fetal parts.
If they recognize a life is being (brutally) terminated, then, deep down they know what they are doing is intrinsically wrong. They are just providing a false escape to a woman with a deeper problem.
Returning to the author’s question: “would the politics surrounding it finally change?”
I would dare to answer: No.
No, because, in their own numbers, abortion providers have fallen 37% since the 1980’s.
No, because, even if the same lie has been told a thousand times, it is not becoming a truth.
No, because the younger generations, the survivors of this silent holocaust get it. And through a conciliatory democratic process they will teach the older generations how to love and respect our most important treasure: Life.
Popularity: 3% [?]