I am sure all of you have heard about our Kansas governor, Sebelius, being nominated by Obama to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. Most of you probably also know that she has been buddies with the infamous late-term abortionist, Tiller, who is Kansas' greatest thorn. She has accepted money from him for her campaigns, has had him to dinner at the governors' mansion, and I know has made things easier for him to do the evil that he does. She has vetoed every pro-life piece of legislation that has made its way to her desk (except for the recent Women's Right to Know, which allows women the right to see the sonogram that the abortion center does, among other things. I know she just signed this for political gain, i.e. not to seem so pro-abortion now that she has been nominated for this position.) It is a disgrace to Kansas to have these two in our state.
As much as I would love to get Sebelius out of Kansas, this position that Obama has nominated her for is not good. She has got to be one of the most pro-abortion politicians out there. All the while claiming to be "pro-woman." And claiming to be Catholic, which is even more disgraceful.
Now is your chance to voice to your senators how you feel about her nomination. Go here to the Americans United for Life Action website and your can plug in your information and they will email your letter to your senators. You can even use a letter they already have written. I just did it and it was so easy. Took only a few minutes! So go, now!
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Friday, April 17, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
The Pope Is Her Shepherd Too
Pope Benedict strongly rebukes Pelosi over abortion
House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s photo-op with Pope Benedict XVI turned sour when the Pontiff used the 15-minute meeting to reaffirm the teachings of the Catholic Church on the right to life and the duty to protect the unborn.
No photo of Nancy Pelosi and the Pope will be forthcoming, since the meeting was closed to reporters and photographers. The two met in a small room in the Vatican just after the Pope's weekly public audience.
Immediately after the meeting, the Holy See’s press office released a statement saying, "following the general audience the Holy Father briefly greeted Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage."
"His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in co-operation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."
Go here to read the full article.
Now we all have to remember to pray for Nancy Pelosi, that the words she heard will sink in and affect her heart and more importantly, her soul.
I am glad she won't get a picture.
Thanks to Cottage Blessings for the story.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Calling All Mothers Who Have Had a Miscarriage
On this day, as thousands of people have been marching in Washington, D.C. in the March for Life, here is a prayer that all women who have miscarried (and men, too, just tweak the prayer) can say to their babies in heaven for an end to abortion:
To An Infant In Heaven (a prayer of petition)
My darling [mention the child's name] you are now in joy in the presence of our God; and in your spotless innocence, which He loves, you can speak to Him with a voice that He will heed. You are still my little baby and will surely regard the prayers of your mother, who bore you. So with confidence, then, I speak to you. Intercede for me to obtain the favor that I here ask as a mother through her child who stands before the throne of God [here mention petition]. But, if what I ask is not according to the wisdom and loving designs of almighty God for me and others, then ask Him to grant what is best according to His good pleasure and to give me the wisdom and faith to conform my will to His.
This prayer has already brought me comfort as I have come to realize that we now have an advocate in heaven. Through the grace of God, she is already interceding for us. Who better to plead before God for an end of abortion than a little miscarried unborn baby, who is as innocent as the poor little ones who are aborted.
And don't forget to pray for the conversion of all those involved in abortion, from the abortionists, to the staff who assist, to those in the organizations which promote it, to the politicians who advocate it as a "woman's choice," especially those who call themselves Catholic. May God save their souls.
To An Infant In Heaven (a prayer of petition)
My darling [mention the child's name] you are now in joy in the presence of our God; and in your spotless innocence, which He loves, you can speak to Him with a voice that He will heed. You are still my little baby and will surely regard the prayers of your mother, who bore you. So with confidence, then, I speak to you. Intercede for me to obtain the favor that I here ask as a mother through her child who stands before the throne of God [here mention petition]. But, if what I ask is not according to the wisdom and loving designs of almighty God for me and others, then ask Him to grant what is best according to His good pleasure and to give me the wisdom and faith to conform my will to His.
This prayer has already brought me comfort as I have come to realize that we now have an advocate in heaven. Through the grace of God, she is already interceding for us. Who better to plead before God for an end of abortion than a little miscarried unborn baby, who is as innocent as the poor little ones who are aborted.
And don't forget to pray for the conversion of all those involved in abortion, from the abortionists, to the staff who assist, to those in the organizations which promote it, to the politicians who advocate it as a "woman's choice," especially those who call themselves Catholic. May God save their souls.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Something Less Than Human
Go read this post by Jen at Conversion Diary.
In it she talks about times in history where ordinary people were surrounded by evil and goes on to wonder if she herself would have recognized the evil for what it was:
"If were a 31-year-old woman with three little kids in a busy house in Germany 1941, would I have fully understood the evil that surrounded me?"
Then she asks how you would know if you were surrounded by such evil when the forces of evil tell such slick lies to make it all seem okay:
"What litmus test could you offer that would apply to all places and all times as a way for a person to look around themselves with completely clear eyes, piercing through even the thickest fog of self-delusion and widespread cultural acceptance, and see that they are surrounded by grave evil?"
Finally, she offers a common denominator in all of the cases:
"One thing that stands out in all these examples is that the victims of the widespread evil were categorized as something less than human."
What is it is our time that is of such grave evil? Well, she knows and we know, that it is abortion. What can we do to speak out against such evil? What work can we do now to stop it? These are questions we can all ask ourselves, especially now that we will have a pro-abortion president and Congress majority.
In it she talks about times in history where ordinary people were surrounded by evil and goes on to wonder if she herself would have recognized the evil for what it was:
"If were a 31-year-old woman with three little kids in a busy house in Germany 1941, would I have fully understood the evil that surrounded me?"
Then she asks how you would know if you were surrounded by such evil when the forces of evil tell such slick lies to make it all seem okay:
"What litmus test could you offer that would apply to all places and all times as a way for a person to look around themselves with completely clear eyes, piercing through even the thickest fog of self-delusion and widespread cultural acceptance, and see that they are surrounded by grave evil?"
Finally, she offers a common denominator in all of the cases:
"One thing that stands out in all these examples is that the victims of the widespread evil were categorized as something less than human."
What is it is our time that is of such grave evil? Well, she knows and we know, that it is abortion. What can we do to speak out against such evil? What work can we do now to stop it? These are questions we can all ask ourselves, especially now that we will have a pro-abortion president and Congress majority.
Monday, November 3, 2008
PLEASE READ!!!
This is an article written by Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of the Kansas City, KS archdiocese for the Leaven, the diocesan paper. See the original article here.
‘The most important crisis in our nation is a moral crisis’
One of the saddest moments for me during this year’s election campaign occurred during the vice presidential debate, when the “Catholic” vice presidential candidate, Senator Joseph Biden, bragged about his role in preserving Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision which in effect legalized abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.
This outburst of pride by Sen. Biden occurred as part of his response to a question inquiring how his thinking had changed since he first entered public life. Senator Biden answered by noting that when he first became a member of the Senate, he believed judicial appointments should be made purely on the basis of the legal competence of a candidate. However, at some point in his Senate career, his thinking evolved. Senator Biden now believes that ideology must also be a factor in evaluating the suitability of a judicial candidate.
By his own admission, Sen. Biden’s leadership on the Judiciary Committee was critical in defeating a nominee who in his opinion, except for his opposition to Roe v. Wade, was qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. By helping preserve Roe v. Wade, Sen. Biden was also assuming a share of responsibility for the deaths of millions of children who have died from abortion because of that Supreme Court decision.
Senator Biden’s debate comments serve as a reminder that our current permissive policies sanctioning abortion have come from the courts — not from Congress, the state Legislatures, or a referendum of the people. It was the decision of the Court in 1973 that struck down all the state laws restricting abortions.
Senator Biden says that he accepts the Catholic Church’s teaching on when human life begins, but asserts that it would be wrong for him to impose this belief on others. At the same time, he is happy and even proud to cooperate in preserving the Supreme Court’s imposition of abortion public policy on the entire nation.
Inadvertently, Sen. Biden also reminded American voters that ultimately we have the ability to change public policy, even those imposed by an over-reaching Court. One of the most important responsibilities of any president is the appointment of federal judges and, in particular, appointments to the Supreme Court.
Senator Biden’s assertion that he preserved Roe v. Wade makes clear that it also matters whom we elect to the U.S. Senate. The Senate has the ability to block any presidential nominee. Also Governor Sarah Palin’s meteoric rise to national prominence demonstrates the importance of electing pro-life candidates as mayors and members of public school boards because of the values they bring to these important local offices and because they form the pool of potential candidates for higher office.
There are those who argue that there were illegal abortions before Roe v. Wade, so what difference does a law make? This is like arguing that since there are still murders, rapes, and thefts, we should just decriminalize these actions.
Of course, there will always be those who will not comply with the law. This does not mean that such laws are ineffective or unnecessary. There are no accurate records of the number of illegal abortions before Roe v. Wade. Doctor Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist and one of the founders of NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) admits that abortion advocates made up the statistics they used in their propaganda efforts to promote abortion’s legalization. The more honest estimates indicate that abortions increased by more than 10 times with legalization. This means that there are more than a million additional abortions annually because of Roe v. Wade. The law really does make a difference.
Senator Barak Obama says that he does not believe in litmus tests for Supreme Court nominees, but he also pledges to protect Roe v. Wade. Senator Obama has also stated that he wants, early in his presidency, to sign into law the so-called Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would eliminate the modest limitations of abortion permitted under Roe v. Wade. Informed consent and parental notification statutes have reduced the number of abortions.
FOCA, in its present form, would also take away conscience clauses. In other words, it could be used to coerce doctors, nurses, hospitals and health care systems to participate in abortion. We should take Sen. Obama’s promises seriously because they are very consistent with his record as Illinois state senator and his brief career as a U.S. senator.
There are many in political life who would like the abortion issue to just disappear. They argue that abortion distracts from the much more important issues of the economy and the national security. The most important crisis in our nation today is a moral crisis. It is a crisis about fundamental values and beliefs. The foundational issue of this moral crisis is whether we will continue to permit the state-sanctioned killing of our own children.
In a recently published interview Sen. Biden said that he is a “John XXIII guy” and “not a Pope John Paul guy.” I hope that he is not trying to imply that Pope John XXIII would bless or approve his action in support of legalized abortion. It is not my responsibility or my role to tell the people of the archdiocese for whom to vote. However, I can tell you there is no such thing as a “John XXIII Catholic” or a “John Paul II Catholic.” There are, however, “faithful” and “unfaithful” Catholics.
Senator Biden is proud to have helped preserve Roe v. Wade and thus to share responsibility for its consequences. Consider this when casting your vote: Are you ready to accept some responsibility for the more than a million unborn children who are killed every year by abortion? Think about it!
‘The most important crisis in our nation is a moral crisis’
One of the saddest moments for me during this year’s election campaign occurred during the vice presidential debate, when the “Catholic” vice presidential candidate, Senator Joseph Biden, bragged about his role in preserving Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision which in effect legalized abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.
This outburst of pride by Sen. Biden occurred as part of his response to a question inquiring how his thinking had changed since he first entered public life. Senator Biden answered by noting that when he first became a member of the Senate, he believed judicial appointments should be made purely on the basis of the legal competence of a candidate. However, at some point in his Senate career, his thinking evolved. Senator Biden now believes that ideology must also be a factor in evaluating the suitability of a judicial candidate.
By his own admission, Sen. Biden’s leadership on the Judiciary Committee was critical in defeating a nominee who in his opinion, except for his opposition to Roe v. Wade, was qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. By helping preserve Roe v. Wade, Sen. Biden was also assuming a share of responsibility for the deaths of millions of children who have died from abortion because of that Supreme Court decision.
Senator Biden’s debate comments serve as a reminder that our current permissive policies sanctioning abortion have come from the courts — not from Congress, the state Legislatures, or a referendum of the people. It was the decision of the Court in 1973 that struck down all the state laws restricting abortions.
Senator Biden says that he accepts the Catholic Church’s teaching on when human life begins, but asserts that it would be wrong for him to impose this belief on others. At the same time, he is happy and even proud to cooperate in preserving the Supreme Court’s imposition of abortion public policy on the entire nation.
Inadvertently, Sen. Biden also reminded American voters that ultimately we have the ability to change public policy, even those imposed by an over-reaching Court. One of the most important responsibilities of any president is the appointment of federal judges and, in particular, appointments to the Supreme Court.
Senator Biden’s assertion that he preserved Roe v. Wade makes clear that it also matters whom we elect to the U.S. Senate. The Senate has the ability to block any presidential nominee. Also Governor Sarah Palin’s meteoric rise to national prominence demonstrates the importance of electing pro-life candidates as mayors and members of public school boards because of the values they bring to these important local offices and because they form the pool of potential candidates for higher office.
There are those who argue that there were illegal abortions before Roe v. Wade, so what difference does a law make? This is like arguing that since there are still murders, rapes, and thefts, we should just decriminalize these actions.
Of course, there will always be those who will not comply with the law. This does not mean that such laws are ineffective or unnecessary. There are no accurate records of the number of illegal abortions before Roe v. Wade. Doctor Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist and one of the founders of NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) admits that abortion advocates made up the statistics they used in their propaganda efforts to promote abortion’s legalization. The more honest estimates indicate that abortions increased by more than 10 times with legalization. This means that there are more than a million additional abortions annually because of Roe v. Wade. The law really does make a difference.
Senator Barak Obama says that he does not believe in litmus tests for Supreme Court nominees, but he also pledges to protect Roe v. Wade. Senator Obama has also stated that he wants, early in his presidency, to sign into law the so-called Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would eliminate the modest limitations of abortion permitted under Roe v. Wade. Informed consent and parental notification statutes have reduced the number of abortions.
FOCA, in its present form, would also take away conscience clauses. In other words, it could be used to coerce doctors, nurses, hospitals and health care systems to participate in abortion. We should take Sen. Obama’s promises seriously because they are very consistent with his record as Illinois state senator and his brief career as a U.S. senator.
There are many in political life who would like the abortion issue to just disappear. They argue that abortion distracts from the much more important issues of the economy and the national security. The most important crisis in our nation today is a moral crisis. It is a crisis about fundamental values and beliefs. The foundational issue of this moral crisis is whether we will continue to permit the state-sanctioned killing of our own children.
In a recently published interview Sen. Biden said that he is a “John XXIII guy” and “not a Pope John Paul guy.” I hope that he is not trying to imply that Pope John XXIII would bless or approve his action in support of legalized abortion. It is not my responsibility or my role to tell the people of the archdiocese for whom to vote. However, I can tell you there is no such thing as a “John XXIII Catholic” or a “John Paul II Catholic.” There are, however, “faithful” and “unfaithful” Catholics.
Senator Biden is proud to have helped preserve Roe v. Wade and thus to share responsibility for its consequences. Consider this when casting your vote: Are you ready to accept some responsibility for the more than a million unborn children who are killed every year by abortion? Think about it!
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Letter From Bishop of Salina, KS
This is the main reason why Barack Obama is a morally unacceptable candidate:
November 1, 2008
All Saints Day
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
On Tuesday the citizens of the United States will elect the leaders who will govern our nation during a time of national turmoil unprecedented in recent memory. We are in the midst of a severe economic crisis, a housing crisis and an unpopular and protracted war against extremists who threaten our national security.
But the fundamental crisis, and the one we hear least about in the media, is a moral crisis. It is a struggle to determine the kind of nation we will be as measured by our treatment of the weakest and most vulnerable among us, the innocent unborn. As Pope Benedict XVI teaches, "The fundamental human right, the presupposition of every other right, is the right to life itself. This is true of life from the moment of conception until its natural end. Abortion, consequently, cannot be a human right—it is the very opposite. It is a deep wound in society."
Protecting innocent human life is not just one issue among many. From a moral perspective it is the foundational issue of our time. It is likely that the next president will decide the fate of the "Freedom of Choice Act". If passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president, it will eliminate every single limit on abortions which have been achieved over the last thirty-five years. It would be catastrophic. This is an example of how much is at stake.
We Catholics have a duty to be actively engaged citizens. Before we vote we must be sure we know where the candidates stand on all the issues, particularly the most fundamental. If we are not well-informed voters we can do actual harm by our vote. As faithful citizens we have a duty to allow our Catholic principles and convictions to form our consciences and guide our decisions in the voting booth.
Please join me in praying for our nation during these final days before this momentous election. Pray for wisdom for all of our fellow citizens that we may choose well on November 4. So much depends on your vote!
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Paul S. Coakley
Bishop of Salina
Barack Obama has told Planned Parenthood that the first thing he will do if elected President is sign FOCA into law. He is pro-abortion down to the core! If you vote for Obama you are cooperating in a grave evil. Don't do it!
November 1, 2008
All Saints Day
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
On Tuesday the citizens of the United States will elect the leaders who will govern our nation during a time of national turmoil unprecedented in recent memory. We are in the midst of a severe economic crisis, a housing crisis and an unpopular and protracted war against extremists who threaten our national security.
But the fundamental crisis, and the one we hear least about in the media, is a moral crisis. It is a struggle to determine the kind of nation we will be as measured by our treatment of the weakest and most vulnerable among us, the innocent unborn. As Pope Benedict XVI teaches, "The fundamental human right, the presupposition of every other right, is the right to life itself. This is true of life from the moment of conception until its natural end. Abortion, consequently, cannot be a human right—it is the very opposite. It is a deep wound in society."
Protecting innocent human life is not just one issue among many. From a moral perspective it is the foundational issue of our time. It is likely that the next president will decide the fate of the "Freedom of Choice Act". If passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president, it will eliminate every single limit on abortions which have been achieved over the last thirty-five years. It would be catastrophic. This is an example of how much is at stake.
We Catholics have a duty to be actively engaged citizens. Before we vote we must be sure we know where the candidates stand on all the issues, particularly the most fundamental. If we are not well-informed voters we can do actual harm by our vote. As faithful citizens we have a duty to allow our Catholic principles and convictions to form our consciences and guide our decisions in the voting booth.
Please join me in praying for our nation during these final days before this momentous election. Pray for wisdom for all of our fellow citizens that we may choose well on November 4. So much depends on your vote!
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Paul S. Coakley
Bishop of Salina
Barack Obama has told Planned Parenthood that the first thing he will do if elected President is sign FOCA into law. He is pro-abortion down to the core! If you vote for Obama you are cooperating in a grave evil. Don't do it!
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Did She Not Listen to the Pope?
Here is one to get your blood boiling. From LifeSiteNews.com:
Catholic Kansas Gov. Sebelius Vetoes Restrictions on Late-Term Abortion
Bill's sponsor pledges to work to override veto
By Michael Baggot
TOPEKA, KS, April 22, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pro-abortion Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius vetoed a bill on Monday that would regulate abortion procedures in the state that is infamous for its high number of late-term abortions.
Senate Bill 389 would have offered women the optino of viewing ultrasound images of their preborn child, tightened up the requirements for obtaining a late-term abortion, and would have allowed a patient, spouse, or family to sue an abortion provider over a suspected unlawful late-term abortion.
"Over the last several years, we have worked on lowering abortion rates in Kansas by focusing on adoption incentives, extended health services for pregnant women, providing sex education and offering a variety of support services for families," wrote Sebelius in a Monday press release.
"SB 389 allows a variety of individuals to seek a court order preventing a woman from obtaining an abortion, even where it may be necessary to save her life," she added.
Sebelius also argued that SB 389 "unnecessarily jeopardizes the privacy of Kansas women's confidential medical records." She concluded, "As Governor, nothing is more important to me than the safety, health and privacy rights of our citizens. I am vetoing SB 389 because it endangers the health of women and is likely to be found in violation the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Kansas."
In a March 31 Kansascity.com editorial, Mary Kay Culp, State Executive Director of Kansans for Life, noted, amogst other things, that Sebelius' concerns about privacy were moot, since under the House equivalent of SB 389, the attorney general or district attorneys involved in investigating abortionists would receive nameless files, not personal medical records of patients.
"Sebelius gave all kinds of false excuses, but the real question Sebelius must answer is why she would veto a law which simply gives women more information when considering abortion, allows them to see their baby on ultrasound if they so request, attempts to avoid coerced abortions of sexually abused minors, and in no way prevents a legal, non-coerced abortion from taking place," said Culp.
"I will do everything in my power to work to override this veto," stated Rep. Lance Kinzer, the bill's sponsor.
While the House passed the bill with enough votes to override the veto, the bill passed through the Senate with two fewer votes than needed to override the veto. Rep. Kinzer and other supporters of the bill will have another chance to override the governor's veto when the legislature resumes on April 30.
In May 2006, Sebelius vetoed Senate Bill 528, which would have required documentation justifying the performance of late-term abortions. Sebelius claimed at the time that her Catholic faith taught the sanctity of human life and that she was personally opposed to abortion.
In response to Sebelius's call to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare," Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City wrote, "Abortion is never safe because it always results in the death of a child. One can hardly call abortion rare when there are more than a million performed every year in the United States and more than 45 million performed since abortion's legalization in 1973."
"It is never permissible for a Catholic to support the legalization of the killing of innocent lives by abortion, much less to lead the fight for legal abortion."
"Reviewing the record of Gov. Sebelius when she served in the Kansas House of Representatives, it is difficult to find a single instance, either in a procedural or substantive vote, where she acted in a manner that would afford unborn children the maximum protection. In the 1980s and 1990s then - Representative Sebelius voted to weaken or eliminate even such modest measures as parental notification, waiting periods and informed consent," added Archbishop Naumann.
Noting the political corruption that may have influenced Sebelius's voting record, Archbishop Naumann wrote, "Her vetoes of these clinic regulation bills were even more troubling in light of her history of accepting campaign contributions from George Tiller, the Wichita abortionist, who has gained a national reputation for performing late term abortions."
Tiller has donated over $38,000 in political funding to Sebelius since 1994.
Contact Gov. Sebelius:Office of the GovernorCapitol, 300 SW 10th Ave., Ste. 212STopeka, KS 66612-1590Voice 1-877-KSWORKS (1-877-579-6757)Local 785-296-3232For the Hearing Impaired 1-800-766-3777http://www.governor.ks.gov/comments/comment.htm
I emailed my comment to the governor. Will you?
Catholic Kansas Gov. Sebelius Vetoes Restrictions on Late-Term Abortion
Bill's sponsor pledges to work to override veto
By Michael Baggot
TOPEKA, KS, April 22, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pro-abortion Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius vetoed a bill on Monday that would regulate abortion procedures in the state that is infamous for its high number of late-term abortions.
Senate Bill 389 would have offered women the optino of viewing ultrasound images of their preborn child, tightened up the requirements for obtaining a late-term abortion, and would have allowed a patient, spouse, or family to sue an abortion provider over a suspected unlawful late-term abortion.
"Over the last several years, we have worked on lowering abortion rates in Kansas by focusing on adoption incentives, extended health services for pregnant women, providing sex education and offering a variety of support services for families," wrote Sebelius in a Monday press release.
"SB 389 allows a variety of individuals to seek a court order preventing a woman from obtaining an abortion, even where it may be necessary to save her life," she added.
Sebelius also argued that SB 389 "unnecessarily jeopardizes the privacy of Kansas women's confidential medical records." She concluded, "As Governor, nothing is more important to me than the safety, health and privacy rights of our citizens. I am vetoing SB 389 because it endangers the health of women and is likely to be found in violation the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Kansas."
In a March 31 Kansascity.com editorial, Mary Kay Culp, State Executive Director of Kansans for Life, noted, amogst other things, that Sebelius' concerns about privacy were moot, since under the House equivalent of SB 389, the attorney general or district attorneys involved in investigating abortionists would receive nameless files, not personal medical records of patients.
"Sebelius gave all kinds of false excuses, but the real question Sebelius must answer is why she would veto a law which simply gives women more information when considering abortion, allows them to see their baby on ultrasound if they so request, attempts to avoid coerced abortions of sexually abused minors, and in no way prevents a legal, non-coerced abortion from taking place," said Culp.
"I will do everything in my power to work to override this veto," stated Rep. Lance Kinzer, the bill's sponsor.
While the House passed the bill with enough votes to override the veto, the bill passed through the Senate with two fewer votes than needed to override the veto. Rep. Kinzer and other supporters of the bill will have another chance to override the governor's veto when the legislature resumes on April 30.
In May 2006, Sebelius vetoed Senate Bill 528, which would have required documentation justifying the performance of late-term abortions. Sebelius claimed at the time that her Catholic faith taught the sanctity of human life and that she was personally opposed to abortion.
In response to Sebelius's call to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare," Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City wrote, "Abortion is never safe because it always results in the death of a child. One can hardly call abortion rare when there are more than a million performed every year in the United States and more than 45 million performed since abortion's legalization in 1973."
"It is never permissible for a Catholic to support the legalization of the killing of innocent lives by abortion, much less to lead the fight for legal abortion."
"Reviewing the record of Gov. Sebelius when she served in the Kansas House of Representatives, it is difficult to find a single instance, either in a procedural or substantive vote, where she acted in a manner that would afford unborn children the maximum protection. In the 1980s and 1990s then - Representative Sebelius voted to weaken or eliminate even such modest measures as parental notification, waiting periods and informed consent," added Archbishop Naumann.
Noting the political corruption that may have influenced Sebelius's voting record, Archbishop Naumann wrote, "Her vetoes of these clinic regulation bills were even more troubling in light of her history of accepting campaign contributions from George Tiller, the Wichita abortionist, who has gained a national reputation for performing late term abortions."
Tiller has donated over $38,000 in political funding to Sebelius since 1994.
Contact Gov. Sebelius:Office of the GovernorCapitol, 300 SW 10th Ave., Ste. 212STopeka, KS 66612-1590Voice 1-877-KSWORKS (1-877-579-6757)Local 785-296-3232For the Hearing Impaired 1-800-766-3777http://www.governor.ks.gov/comments/comment.htm
I emailed my comment to the governor. Will you?
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Can You Believe It?
Read here about a guy in Britain who actually got jail time for slipping abortifacient drugs into his wife's food after she refused to have an abortion. Luckily, they didn't work and her baby was born early, but alive and healthy. I could not even imagine!
Monday, February 4, 2008
Amazing Story
Amazing story about a woman whose twins kicked loose her cervical cancer while in the womb and saved her life. And her refusal to abort her babies to give herself a better chance of survival.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
35 Years and Nine Months Ago
35 years and nine months ago I was born. I often think about what might have happened if it was a year later with a different mom and a different doctor. My mom had a serious infection while pregnant with me and then they told her I was dead. My mom remembers the nurse telling them that it was probably a good thing as I would likely be seriously damaged had I lived. Her doctor let her go home to "let Nature take it's course." You cannot imagine the joy quickly followed by anxiety when my mother later felt me moving.
At that point, what if it was a year later, when abortion was legal? What if my mother's doctor had been quick to suggest abortion when there could be a problem with the baby? What if my parents hadn't been faithful Catholics who trusted in God? The outcome of the story might be different and I might not be writing this today. As it turned out, I was born, completely normal and healthy (my husband might debate the normal part, ha!). And then, nine months later, came Roe vs. Wade.
Now, 35 years later, 50 million babies have been destroyed. The number is almost too staggering to comprehend. Abortion is the number one cause of death in the world. I sat watching the coverage of the March for Life Rally earlier today surrounded by my 4 innocent children. How on earth could our country come to the point where it is legal to destroy babies in their mother's womb when in just a few short months and years they look like this? All I have to do is look into my little 8 month old baby's face to see the horror of abortion.
As a doctor, I cannot comprehend how doctors, who take the Hippocratic Oath pledging to first do no harm, can perform abortions. I personally have been privileged to have the opportunity to counsel pregnant women at our local crisis pregnancy center and to offer them sonograms. Almost invariably, they stare transfixed at the sight of their little baby's heartbeat and movement. They know they are looking at a baby and the majority of the time, an abortion becomes unthinkable.
It is easy to get complacent about abortion when it is ever present and seemingly never-ending, and I know I am guilty of this at times. Let us support each other to continue the good fight and to above all, pray, pray, pray, and to remember to offer up our sufferings for an end of abortion. May it soon become unthinkable to this country and the world.
At that point, what if it was a year later, when abortion was legal? What if my mother's doctor had been quick to suggest abortion when there could be a problem with the baby? What if my parents hadn't been faithful Catholics who trusted in God? The outcome of the story might be different and I might not be writing this today. As it turned out, I was born, completely normal and healthy (my husband might debate the normal part, ha!). And then, nine months later, came Roe vs. Wade.
Now, 35 years later, 50 million babies have been destroyed. The number is almost too staggering to comprehend. Abortion is the number one cause of death in the world. I sat watching the coverage of the March for Life Rally earlier today surrounded by my 4 innocent children. How on earth could our country come to the point where it is legal to destroy babies in their mother's womb when in just a few short months and years they look like this? All I have to do is look into my little 8 month old baby's face to see the horror of abortion.
As a doctor, I cannot comprehend how doctors, who take the Hippocratic Oath pledging to first do no harm, can perform abortions. I personally have been privileged to have the opportunity to counsel pregnant women at our local crisis pregnancy center and to offer them sonograms. Almost invariably, they stare transfixed at the sight of their little baby's heartbeat and movement. They know they are looking at a baby and the majority of the time, an abortion becomes unthinkable.
It is easy to get complacent about abortion when it is ever present and seemingly never-ending, and I know I am guilty of this at times. Let us support each other to continue the good fight and to above all, pray, pray, pray, and to remember to offer up our sufferings for an end of abortion. May it soon become unthinkable to this country and the world.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Ridiculous ACOG Position
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has just put out a statement that all doctors should be required to refer patients to a doctor who will do abortions. Not only that, but they recommend that pro-life doctors move their offices closer to abortion clinics so that the women won't have far to go. Oh my! Read an article about it here.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
A Religion called Environmentalism...
...where Abortion is one of its most Sacred Sacraments ...
from the DailyMail.co.uk
Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco friendly
By NATASHA COURTENAY-SMITH and MORAG TURNER
Last updated at 22:05pm on 21st November 2007
Click here for original article
Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.
But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.
Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.
Desperate measures: Toni Vernelli was steralised at age 27 to reduce her carbon footprint
Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible "mistake" of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.
He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity - "relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.
Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.
At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".
Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.
While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.
"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.
"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."
While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.
It's an extreme stance which one might imagine is born from an unhappy childhood or an upbringing among parents who share similar, strong beliefs.
But nothing in Toni's safe, middle- class upbringing gave any clues as to the views which would shape her adult life. The eldest of three daughters, she enjoyed a loving, close-knit family life.
She excelled at her Roman Catholic school, and her doting parents fully expected her to grow up, settle down and start a family of her own.
"When I finished school, I got a job in retail and at 19, I met my first husband," says Toni.
"No sooner had we finished our wedding cake than all our relatives started to ask when they could expect a new addition to the family.
"I always told them that would never happen, but no one listened.
"When I was a child, I loved bird-watching, and in my teens that developed into a passion for the environment as well as the welfare of animals - I became a vegetarian when I was 15.
"Even my parents used to smile and say: 'You'll change your mind one day about babies.'
"The only person who understood how I felt was my first husband, who didn't want children either.
"We both passionately wanted to save the planet - not produce a new life which would only add to the problem."
So, instead of mapping out plans for a family, Toni and her husband began discussing medical options to ensure they would never reproduce.
Toni, from Taunton, Somerset, says: "When I was 21, I considered sterilisation for the first time.
"I'd been on the Pill for five years and didn't want to take hormone-based contraception indefinitely.
"I went to my GP, but she wouldn't even consider the idea.
"She said I was far too young and told me I could 'absolutely not' be sterilised, and that I was bound to change my mind one day.
"I found her attitude frustrating.
"We decided my husband would have a vasectomy instead. He was 25, just a few years older than me, but the GP allowed him to go ahead.
"I found it insulting that she thought that, just because I was a woman, I'd reach a point where an urge to breed would overcome all rational thought."
When Toni was 23, her marriage ended. She says: "We married very young and grew apart."
Toni found herself young, single and with a new life in London, working for an environmental charity.
But while other young women dream of marriage and babies, Toni was convinced it was her duty not to have a child.
She claims she was far from alone.
"Through my job I made many friends who, like me, were more interested in campaigning, trying to change society and save the planet rather than having families of our own.
"We used to say that if ever we did want children, we'd adopt, as there are so many children in need of a loving family.
"At least then, we'd be doing something positive for the world, rather than something negative."
Toni was happy, at last, with fellow environmentalists who shared her philosophy. But when she was 25, disaster struck.
"I discovered that despite taking the Pill, I'd accidentally fallen pregnant by my boyfriend.
"I was horrified. I knew straight away there was no option of having the baby.
"I went to my doctor about having a termination, and asked if I could be sterilised at the same time.
"This time it was a male doctor. I remember saying to him: 'I want to make sure this never happens again.'
"He said: 'You may not want a child, but one day you may meet a man who does'. He refused to consider it.
"I didn't like having a termination, but it would have been immoral to give birth to a child that I felt strongly would only be a burden to the world.
"I've never felt a twinge of guilt about what I did, and have honestly never wondered what might have been.
"After my abortion, I was more determined than ever to pursue sterilisation.
"By then, I had my mother's support - she realised I wasn't going to grow out of my beliefs, and was proud of my campaigning work."
At the age of 27, Toni moved to Brighton, where her dream of medical intervention was realised.
Toni says: "My new GP was more forward-thinking and referred me to hospital. I couldn't wait for the operation."
As Toni awaited the surgery which would destroy her fertility, she met her future husband, Ed, 38, an IT consultant.
"A week before my sterilisation, I went to an animal rights demonstration and met Ed.
"I liked him immediately, and I told him what I was doing straight away - because if he wanted children then he needed to know I wasn't the woman for him," she says.
"But Ed was relieved when I told him how I felt and said he didn't want children for the same reasons."
On the morning of surgery, Ed gave Toni a card saying "Congratulations".
Toni says: "After the operation, which is irreversible, I didn't feel emotional - just relieved.
"I've never doubted that I made the right decision. Ed and I married in September 2002, and have a much nicer lifestyle as a result of not having children.
"We love walking and hiking, and we often go away for weekends.
"Every year, we also take a nice holiday - we've just come back from South Africa.
"We feel we can have one long-haul flight a year, as we are vegan and childless, thereby greatly reducing our carbon footprint and combating over-population.
"My only frustration is that other people are unable to accept my decision.
"When I tell people why I don't want children, they look at me as if I was planning to commit murder.
"A woman who does not have maternal-feelings is seen as some sort of anomaly.
"And a woman like me, who is not having children in order to save the planet, is considered barking mad.
"What I consider mad are those women who ferry their children short distances in gas-guzzling cars."
But Toni is far from alone.
When Sarah Irving, 31, was a teenager she sat down and wrote a wish-list for the future.
Sarah Irving and Mark Hudson were adamant they would live the greenest possible lives
Most young girls dream of marriage and babies. But Sarah dreamed of helping the environment - and as she agonised over the perils of climate change, the loss of animal species and destruction of wilderness, she came to the extraordinary decision never to have a child.
"I realised then that a baby would pollute the planet - and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do."
Sarah's boyfriends have been less understanding than Toni's, with the breakdown of several relationships.
"I've had boyfriends who wanted children, so I knew I couldn't be with them long term,' says Sarah.
"I've had to break up with a couple of boyfriends because I didn't think it was fair to waste their time.
"In my early 20s I had a boyfriend who I really liked, but he wanted to start a family as soon as possible.
"I was tempted to stay with him and hope he would change his mind, but I knew I couldn't provide him with what he wanted so I walked away."
Sarah started work for the Ethical Consumer magazine, and seven years ago she met her fiancÈ Mark Hudson, a 37-year- old health- care worker.
When they started dating in 2003, they immediately discussed their views on children.
"To my relief, Mark was as adamant as me that he didn't want a family. After a year of dating, we started talking about sterilisation," says Sarah.
"I didn't want to have an 'accident' if contraception didn't work - we would be faced with the dilemma of whether to keep the baby."
While other young couples sit down and discuss mortgages, Sarah and Mark discussed the medical options for one or the other to be sterilised.
"We realised it was a much more straightforward procedure, safer and easier, for a man to be sterilised through a vasectomy than a woman to be sterilised," says Sarah.
"In January 2005, Mark had a vasectomy and we both felt incredibly relieved there was no chance of us having a baby."
Ironically, the couple who have decided to deny themselves children for the sake of the planet, actively enjoy the company of young children.
Sarah says: "We both have nieces who we love dearly and I consider myself a caring, nurturing person.
"My sister recently had a little girl, and that has taken the pressure off me because my parents wanted to be grandparents.
"At first, they were surprised by my decision, but they have never criticised us.
"I'd never dream of preaching to others about having a family. It's a very personal choice. What I do like to do is make people aware of the facts.
"When I see a mother with a large family, I don't resent her, but I do hope she's thought through the implications."
Mark adds: "Sarah and I live as green a life a possible. We don't have a car, cycle everywhere instead, and we never fly.
"We recycle, use low-energy light bulbs and eat only organic, locally produced food.
"In short, we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child.
"That's why I had a vasectomy. It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth.
"Sarah and I don't need children to feel complete. What makes us happy is knowing that we are doing our bit to save our precious planet."
from the DailyMail.co.uk
Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco friendly
By NATASHA COURTENAY-SMITH and MORAG TURNER
Last updated at 22:05pm on 21st November 2007
Click here for original article
Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.
But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.
Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.
Desperate measures: Toni Vernelli was steralised at age 27 to reduce her carbon footprint
Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible "mistake" of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.
He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity - "relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.
Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.
At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".
Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.
While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.
"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.
"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."
While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.
It's an extreme stance which one might imagine is born from an unhappy childhood or an upbringing among parents who share similar, strong beliefs.
But nothing in Toni's safe, middle- class upbringing gave any clues as to the views which would shape her adult life. The eldest of three daughters, she enjoyed a loving, close-knit family life.
She excelled at her Roman Catholic school, and her doting parents fully expected her to grow up, settle down and start a family of her own.
"When I finished school, I got a job in retail and at 19, I met my first husband," says Toni.
"No sooner had we finished our wedding cake than all our relatives started to ask when they could expect a new addition to the family.
"I always told them that would never happen, but no one listened.
"When I was a child, I loved bird-watching, and in my teens that developed into a passion for the environment as well as the welfare of animals - I became a vegetarian when I was 15.
"Even my parents used to smile and say: 'You'll change your mind one day about babies.'
"The only person who understood how I felt was my first husband, who didn't want children either.
"We both passionately wanted to save the planet - not produce a new life which would only add to the problem."
So, instead of mapping out plans for a family, Toni and her husband began discussing medical options to ensure they would never reproduce.
Toni, from Taunton, Somerset, says: "When I was 21, I considered sterilisation for the first time.
"I'd been on the Pill for five years and didn't want to take hormone-based contraception indefinitely.
"I went to my GP, but she wouldn't even consider the idea.
"She said I was far too young and told me I could 'absolutely not' be sterilised, and that I was bound to change my mind one day.
"I found her attitude frustrating.
"We decided my husband would have a vasectomy instead. He was 25, just a few years older than me, but the GP allowed him to go ahead.
"I found it insulting that she thought that, just because I was a woman, I'd reach a point where an urge to breed would overcome all rational thought."
When Toni was 23, her marriage ended. She says: "We married very young and grew apart."
Toni found herself young, single and with a new life in London, working for an environmental charity.
But while other young women dream of marriage and babies, Toni was convinced it was her duty not to have a child.
She claims she was far from alone.
"Through my job I made many friends who, like me, were more interested in campaigning, trying to change society and save the planet rather than having families of our own.
"We used to say that if ever we did want children, we'd adopt, as there are so many children in need of a loving family.
"At least then, we'd be doing something positive for the world, rather than something negative."
Toni was happy, at last, with fellow environmentalists who shared her philosophy. But when she was 25, disaster struck.
"I discovered that despite taking the Pill, I'd accidentally fallen pregnant by my boyfriend.
"I was horrified. I knew straight away there was no option of having the baby.
"I went to my doctor about having a termination, and asked if I could be sterilised at the same time.
"This time it was a male doctor. I remember saying to him: 'I want to make sure this never happens again.'
"He said: 'You may not want a child, but one day you may meet a man who does'. He refused to consider it.
"I didn't like having a termination, but it would have been immoral to give birth to a child that I felt strongly would only be a burden to the world.
"I've never felt a twinge of guilt about what I did, and have honestly never wondered what might have been.
"After my abortion, I was more determined than ever to pursue sterilisation.
"By then, I had my mother's support - she realised I wasn't going to grow out of my beliefs, and was proud of my campaigning work."
At the age of 27, Toni moved to Brighton, where her dream of medical intervention was realised.
Toni says: "My new GP was more forward-thinking and referred me to hospital. I couldn't wait for the operation."
As Toni awaited the surgery which would destroy her fertility, she met her future husband, Ed, 38, an IT consultant.
"A week before my sterilisation, I went to an animal rights demonstration and met Ed.
"I liked him immediately, and I told him what I was doing straight away - because if he wanted children then he needed to know I wasn't the woman for him," she says.
"But Ed was relieved when I told him how I felt and said he didn't want children for the same reasons."
On the morning of surgery, Ed gave Toni a card saying "Congratulations".
Toni says: "After the operation, which is irreversible, I didn't feel emotional - just relieved.
"I've never doubted that I made the right decision. Ed and I married in September 2002, and have a much nicer lifestyle as a result of not having children.
"We love walking and hiking, and we often go away for weekends.
"Every year, we also take a nice holiday - we've just come back from South Africa.
"We feel we can have one long-haul flight a year, as we are vegan and childless, thereby greatly reducing our carbon footprint and combating over-population.
"My only frustration is that other people are unable to accept my decision.
"When I tell people why I don't want children, they look at me as if I was planning to commit murder.
"A woman who does not have maternal-feelings is seen as some sort of anomaly.
"And a woman like me, who is not having children in order to save the planet, is considered barking mad.
"What I consider mad are those women who ferry their children short distances in gas-guzzling cars."
But Toni is far from alone.
When Sarah Irving, 31, was a teenager she sat down and wrote a wish-list for the future.
Sarah Irving and Mark Hudson were adamant they would live the greenest possible lives
Most young girls dream of marriage and babies. But Sarah dreamed of helping the environment - and as she agonised over the perils of climate change, the loss of animal species and destruction of wilderness, she came to the extraordinary decision never to have a child.
"I realised then that a baby would pollute the planet - and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do."
Sarah's boyfriends have been less understanding than Toni's, with the breakdown of several relationships.
"I've had boyfriends who wanted children, so I knew I couldn't be with them long term,' says Sarah.
"I've had to break up with a couple of boyfriends because I didn't think it was fair to waste their time.
"In my early 20s I had a boyfriend who I really liked, but he wanted to start a family as soon as possible.
"I was tempted to stay with him and hope he would change his mind, but I knew I couldn't provide him with what he wanted so I walked away."
Sarah started work for the Ethical Consumer magazine, and seven years ago she met her fiancÈ Mark Hudson, a 37-year- old health- care worker.
When they started dating in 2003, they immediately discussed their views on children.
"To my relief, Mark was as adamant as me that he didn't want a family. After a year of dating, we started talking about sterilisation," says Sarah.
"I didn't want to have an 'accident' if contraception didn't work - we would be faced with the dilemma of whether to keep the baby."
While other young couples sit down and discuss mortgages, Sarah and Mark discussed the medical options for one or the other to be sterilised.
"We realised it was a much more straightforward procedure, safer and easier, for a man to be sterilised through a vasectomy than a woman to be sterilised," says Sarah.
"In January 2005, Mark had a vasectomy and we both felt incredibly relieved there was no chance of us having a baby."
Ironically, the couple who have decided to deny themselves children for the sake of the planet, actively enjoy the company of young children.
Sarah says: "We both have nieces who we love dearly and I consider myself a caring, nurturing person.
"My sister recently had a little girl, and that has taken the pressure off me because my parents wanted to be grandparents.
"At first, they were surprised by my decision, but they have never criticised us.
"I'd never dream of preaching to others about having a family. It's a very personal choice. What I do like to do is make people aware of the facts.
"When I see a mother with a large family, I don't resent her, but I do hope she's thought through the implications."
Mark adds: "Sarah and I live as green a life a possible. We don't have a car, cycle everywhere instead, and we never fly.
"We recycle, use low-energy light bulbs and eat only organic, locally produced food.
"In short, we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child.
"That's why I had a vasectomy. It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth.
"Sarah and I don't need children to feel complete. What makes us happy is knowing that we are doing our bit to save our precious planet."
Friday, September 28, 2007
Plan B and Catholic Medical Ethics
In regards to the Connecticut Catholic Bishops statement on Plan B (morning after pill) and Catholic Hospitals: As a family practice physician who has been trained as a medical consultant for the Creighton Model NFP, I am appalled at this statement. It says that Catholic hospitals will be allowed to give the MAP to rape victims and all they have to do is have a negative pregnancy test. It claims that giving the morning after pill (MAP) would not be considered an abortion. This is misleading, because the MAP can act as an abortifacient.
What is the MAP? It is the same hormones as are in the oral contraceptive (OCP), only a much, much larger dose.
How does it work? There are 3 ways. 1)Prevent the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation); 2)Slow down transport of the sperm or egg (or the fertilized egg, also called a baby); and 3)Change the lining of the uterus to prevent the implantation of the fertilized egg (also called the blastocyst, also known as a baby). Preventing the implantation of the blastocyst (baby) is an abortion! There is no getting around this.
One problem is that the manufacturers and other interested parties (oh, I don't know, lets see, maybe... Planned Parenthood? Just a wild guess) are trying to change the definition of conception to mean implanting in the uterus, that way they can say that the MAP only prevents conception. Conception is when the sperm and egg unite in the fallopian tube and a new human being is now present. Therefore the MAP can and does act as abortifacient.
That said there is no reliable means to discern whether or not a woman is pregnant when she asks for the MAP. For example a woman could be 4 days pregnant when she is raped and an ovulation test and a pregnancy test would both be negative and if given the MAP an early abortion could ensue. Alternatively, a woman could have ovulated 12 hours prior to the rape and the egg is making its way toward the uterus and by the time the woman comes to the hospital she could already be pregnant (it has been shown that sperm can make it to the fallopian tubes within 5 minutes) and there would be no way to know this. If you could know with 100% certainty that a woman was not pregnant, then there would be no problem with administering the MAP.
Rape is a terrible thing, but it doesn't justify the potential killing of a human life.
Posted by Janet
What is the MAP? It is the same hormones as are in the oral contraceptive (OCP), only a much, much larger dose.
How does it work? There are 3 ways. 1)Prevent the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation); 2)Slow down transport of the sperm or egg (or the fertilized egg, also called a baby); and 3)Change the lining of the uterus to prevent the implantation of the fertilized egg (also called the blastocyst, also known as a baby). Preventing the implantation of the blastocyst (baby) is an abortion! There is no getting around this.
One problem is that the manufacturers and other interested parties (oh, I don't know, lets see, maybe... Planned Parenthood? Just a wild guess) are trying to change the definition of conception to mean implanting in the uterus, that way they can say that the MAP only prevents conception. Conception is when the sperm and egg unite in the fallopian tube and a new human being is now present. Therefore the MAP can and does act as abortifacient.
That said there is no reliable means to discern whether or not a woman is pregnant when she asks for the MAP. For example a woman could be 4 days pregnant when she is raped and an ovulation test and a pregnancy test would both be negative and if given the MAP an early abortion could ensue. Alternatively, a woman could have ovulated 12 hours prior to the rape and the egg is making its way toward the uterus and by the time the woman comes to the hospital she could already be pregnant (it has been shown that sperm can make it to the fallopian tubes within 5 minutes) and there would be no way to know this. If you could know with 100% certainty that a woman was not pregnant, then there would be no problem with administering the MAP.
Rape is a terrible thing, but it doesn't justify the potential killing of a human life.
Posted by Janet
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Tiller the Baby Killer
Wichita's notorious TBK (not to be confused with BTK)
Tiller abortion racket withers in the light
Posted: September 13, 20071:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jack Cashill
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2007
After 22 year-old Michelle Armesto finished testifying last Friday, Wichita abortion doctor George Tiller had to wonder how much more money he would have to pump into Kansas politics to keep his late-term empire afloat.
Armesto testified on the third and last day of special legislative hearings in Topeka on the enforcement of Kansas late-term abortion laws.
With the help of the many politicians he has backed – including Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius – Tiller has turned this reddest of red states into the world's bloodiest. His clinic performed 380 late-term abortions last year alone.
That same year, 2006, Tiller money was instrumental in the undoing of then Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline. Tiller pumped hundreds of thousands into the campaign against Kline to derail his dogged investigation of Tiller's clinic.
For all that, Tiller would not have prevailed without the full-throated support of the local media. In fact, for its repeated slander of the "anti-choice extremist" Kline, the Star won Planned Parenthood's top media honor last year, the "Maggie Award," named for its eugenicist founder, Margaret Sanger.
Despite Kline's defeat, some of the more stalwart Kansas legislators have refused to back down. They organized the hearings in question when the man who beat Kline, pro-choice Republican turned Democrat Paul Morrison, appeared to be dragging his feet on the investigation Kline had forced open.
Curiously, the Armesto file was not among those Kline had subpoenaed. Kline had been investigating only those abortions performed on healthy, viable babies. Unbeknown to Armesto, Tiller had recorded her unborn child as being non-viable.
This fact Armesto learned only after she had volunteered to testify. She fully believes her unborn baby to have been healthy at the time of the abortion.
Otherwise, the Armesto story is as heartbreaking as it is typical in this unholy industry. As she testified, her parents pressured her to abort what would have been her first child.
Armesto was 18 at the time and in the 24th week of her pregnancy. She told her mother, "It's murder and I will not do it."
Armesto's fiancé and his parents desperately wanted the baby as well. He was making decent money, and the parents offered a basement apartment and child care while she attended school.
Their support only aggravated Armesto's parents. "I was told that I would be kicked out of my family and to not come back," she told the legislators.
Tiller's clinic eased Armesto's conscience by citing a Catholic group that "believed in abortion" and promised baptism for the aborted baby. In reality, the Catholic Church considers abortion "murder" and "always morally evil."
Ordinary Kansans are no friends of abortion, either. Under Kansas law, a late-term abortion can be performed on a viable baby only if the woman would otherwise die or suffer "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."
As Armesto would soon learn, Tiller honored Kansas law about as faithfully as he did Catholic doctrine. Not one woman in her group of five, herself included, risked physical or mental health impairment of any sort.
The women talked among themselves during their stay in Wichita. "All were there," Armesto testified, "because they thought [late-term abortion] would solve their problems." These problems ranged from unreliable boyfriends to socially ambitious parents.
After the group watched a video on "Dr. Tiller's legacy," a nurse took Armesto to a private room and prepared her for an ultrasound. When Armesto tried to look at the screen, the nurse abruptly moved the screen away.
Armesto was then taken to another room. There a female doctor inserted a large needle twice to make sure she injected the unborn child, "and that," said Armesto, "is when the baby was killed."
Only after this procedure did Armesto fill out the paperwork and meet with a counselor. She also met with a self-identified Unitarian minister who consoled her, "You have to take care of the ones who are here, not the ones who aren't born."
After the initial injections, Armesto underwent a variety of preparations to ease the delivery of the dead baby. A late-term abortion of this kind is a three-day ordeal with nights spent at a local hotel.
On her second day, Armesto met casually with Tiller for the first time but only for a few minutes. He talked to her about his own teenage children and how presumably, "if in the same situation, would do the same thing."
That evening, Armesto's fiancé got word of what was happening and finessed his way past her mother and into the hotel room where she was staying.
"He begged me not to go through with the abortion," Armesto lamented, "and I told him it was too late." The fiancé was sincere in his affection. Despite the abortion, he later married Armesto, and today the couple has two children.
By the third day, Armesto's labor had proceeded to the point where she was ready to deliver. What follows is not for the faint of heart.
"I remember yelling at the nurse and calling her names and telling her I did not want to be on the toilet," Armesto recounted. "I finally birthed the baby, and I distinctly remember seeing the baby on the floor to the left of the toilet."
Said Armesto, "That image haunts me daily." There was no follow-up care of any kind for Armesto. Nor did Tiller's clinic call to see that there was.
This would not surprise Dr. Paul McHugh. Before leaving office, Kline had contracted with the impeccably credentialed Johns Hopkins psychiatrist to review the subpoenaed Tiller files, all of which cited mental health exemptions.
After new AG Morrison ignored McHugh for six months, pro-life forces brought McHugh to Kansas City to share his findings.
When asked whether he had seen any one file that justified a late-term abortion under Kansas law, McHugh unequivocally responded, "I saw no file that justified abortion on that basis."
Nor did McHugh see any sign of medical follow-up with these women who had allegedly just been rescued from irreversible psychiatric damage.
The Armesto testimony adds heart and soul to McHugh's findings. From existing evidence, it seems likely that nearly all of Tiller's late-term abortions have been performed as a matter of coercion or convenience in full indifference to Kansas law.
Although the Kansas City Star is beginning to distance itself from the heretofore white-hatted Tiller, it still reserves words like "grisly" and "horrific" for editorials on Michael Vick.
For a Maggie winner, alas, this is not likely to change.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Watch this video made by Kansas Teens for Life:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIzRPtsBSR8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ref: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57603Tiller abortion racket withers in the light
Posted: September 13, 20071:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jack Cashill
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2007
After 22 year-old Michelle Armesto finished testifying last Friday, Wichita abortion doctor George Tiller had to wonder how much more money he would have to pump into Kansas politics to keep his late-term empire afloat.
Armesto testified on the third and last day of special legislative hearings in Topeka on the enforcement of Kansas late-term abortion laws.
With the help of the many politicians he has backed – including Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius – Tiller has turned this reddest of red states into the world's bloodiest. His clinic performed 380 late-term abortions last year alone.
That same year, 2006, Tiller money was instrumental in the undoing of then Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline. Tiller pumped hundreds of thousands into the campaign against Kline to derail his dogged investigation of Tiller's clinic.
For all that, Tiller would not have prevailed without the full-throated support of the local media. In fact, for its repeated slander of the "anti-choice extremist" Kline, the Star won Planned Parenthood's top media honor last year, the "Maggie Award," named for its eugenicist founder, Margaret Sanger.
Despite Kline's defeat, some of the more stalwart Kansas legislators have refused to back down. They organized the hearings in question when the man who beat Kline, pro-choice Republican turned Democrat Paul Morrison, appeared to be dragging his feet on the investigation Kline had forced open.
Curiously, the Armesto file was not among those Kline had subpoenaed. Kline had been investigating only those abortions performed on healthy, viable babies. Unbeknown to Armesto, Tiller had recorded her unborn child as being non-viable.
This fact Armesto learned only after she had volunteered to testify. She fully believes her unborn baby to have been healthy at the time of the abortion.
Otherwise, the Armesto story is as heartbreaking as it is typical in this unholy industry. As she testified, her parents pressured her to abort what would have been her first child.
Armesto was 18 at the time and in the 24th week of her pregnancy. She told her mother, "It's murder and I will not do it."
Armesto's fiancé and his parents desperately wanted the baby as well. He was making decent money, and the parents offered a basement apartment and child care while she attended school.
Their support only aggravated Armesto's parents. "I was told that I would be kicked out of my family and to not come back," she told the legislators.
Tiller's clinic eased Armesto's conscience by citing a Catholic group that "believed in abortion" and promised baptism for the aborted baby. In reality, the Catholic Church considers abortion "murder" and "always morally evil."
Ordinary Kansans are no friends of abortion, either. Under Kansas law, a late-term abortion can be performed on a viable baby only if the woman would otherwise die or suffer "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."
As Armesto would soon learn, Tiller honored Kansas law about as faithfully as he did Catholic doctrine. Not one woman in her group of five, herself included, risked physical or mental health impairment of any sort.
The women talked among themselves during their stay in Wichita. "All were there," Armesto testified, "because they thought [late-term abortion] would solve their problems." These problems ranged from unreliable boyfriends to socially ambitious parents.
After the group watched a video on "Dr. Tiller's legacy," a nurse took Armesto to a private room and prepared her for an ultrasound. When Armesto tried to look at the screen, the nurse abruptly moved the screen away.
Armesto was then taken to another room. There a female doctor inserted a large needle twice to make sure she injected the unborn child, "and that," said Armesto, "is when the baby was killed."
Only after this procedure did Armesto fill out the paperwork and meet with a counselor. She also met with a self-identified Unitarian minister who consoled her, "You have to take care of the ones who are here, not the ones who aren't born."
After the initial injections, Armesto underwent a variety of preparations to ease the delivery of the dead baby. A late-term abortion of this kind is a three-day ordeal with nights spent at a local hotel.
On her second day, Armesto met casually with Tiller for the first time but only for a few minutes. He talked to her about his own teenage children and how presumably, "if in the same situation, would do the same thing."
That evening, Armesto's fiancé got word of what was happening and finessed his way past her mother and into the hotel room where she was staying.
"He begged me not to go through with the abortion," Armesto lamented, "and I told him it was too late." The fiancé was sincere in his affection. Despite the abortion, he later married Armesto, and today the couple has two children.
By the third day, Armesto's labor had proceeded to the point where she was ready to deliver. What follows is not for the faint of heart.
"I remember yelling at the nurse and calling her names and telling her I did not want to be on the toilet," Armesto recounted. "I finally birthed the baby, and I distinctly remember seeing the baby on the floor to the left of the toilet."
Said Armesto, "That image haunts me daily." There was no follow-up care of any kind for Armesto. Nor did Tiller's clinic call to see that there was.
This would not surprise Dr. Paul McHugh. Before leaving office, Kline had contracted with the impeccably credentialed Johns Hopkins psychiatrist to review the subpoenaed Tiller files, all of which cited mental health exemptions.
After new AG Morrison ignored McHugh for six months, pro-life forces brought McHugh to Kansas City to share his findings.
When asked whether he had seen any one file that justified a late-term abortion under Kansas law, McHugh unequivocally responded, "I saw no file that justified abortion on that basis."
Nor did McHugh see any sign of medical follow-up with these women who had allegedly just been rescued from irreversible psychiatric damage.
The Armesto testimony adds heart and soul to McHugh's findings. From existing evidence, it seems likely that nearly all of Tiller's late-term abortions have been performed as a matter of coercion or convenience in full indifference to Kansas law.
Although the Kansas City Star is beginning to distance itself from the heretofore white-hatted Tiller, it still reserves words like "grisly" and "horrific" for editorials on Michael Vick.
For a Maggie winner, alas, this is not likely to change.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Watch this video made by Kansas Teens for Life:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIzRPtsBSR8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
