May 2007 Archives

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly rebounded from a six-month silence to issue a scathing segment on the notorious late-term abortionist George R. Tiller that aired the evening of May 30. During the segment, O'Reilly blasted Tiller for "executing fetuses" for "vague medical reasons."

He was equally critical of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who vetoed a bill that would have required Tiller to provide specific medical reasons for abortions after 21 weeks of pregnancy.

"Incredibly, Gov. Sebelius is protecting Tiller," O'Reilly said during his broadcast. "And Gov. Sebelius is allowing him to continue the slaughter. How the governor sleeps at night is beyond me."

O'Reilly produced a document showing that Tiller has a lengthy history of campaign contributions to Sebelius going back to 1994.

O'Reilly's guest was Rep. Ben Hodge, who resigned a committee post in protest of the lack of action by Speaker Melvin Neufeld to bring Tiller to justice.

When asked by O'Reilly if this was a disgrace upon everyone who lives in Kansas, Rep. Hodge responded, "Yes, I think it is. I think at times in American history there will be times when branches of government fail the people and I think this is one of those times."

"O'Reilly's remarks underscore what our own research and work has revealed about the web of corruption that surrounds and protects Tiller," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman, who worked behind the scenes with Kansas legislators in an attempt to bring Tiller to justice.

"Because women come from every state to abort late-term babies at Tiller's Wichita abortion mill, this is a national problem. We pray that the national exposure O'Reilly brings to this scandal will force the people of Kansas to begin taking meaningful action to clean up governmental corruption and bring Tiller to a court where he can be held accountable under the law as soon as possible," said Newman.

Click here to watch the video.

Source: Operation Rescue

I've read some nauseating things in the past few months, but this takes the cake.

I can decide when my dog is in enough pain to give him drugs to euthanize him, but where I live, and in all but a single US state, I am not permitted to make the same decision for myself. That fact is ludicrous, but nonetheless true.

Assisted suicide advocate and pioneer Jack Kevorkian gets out of prison soon, thankfully. He was a pioneer in advocating for physician assisted euthanasia, and was severely persecuted by a perverse legal and logical system for his efforts. A system that is permeated by a so called religious culture that advocates capital punishment, and war, yet is often adamantly opposed to stem cell research, and euthanasia - regardless of the circumstances (the entire "culture of life" is a hugely hypocritical fiasco).

Read the rest at Marlowe's Shade

In a recent post on the Generations for Life blog, John points out that advocates for so called comprehensive sexuality education programs are in bed with the pornography industry. The Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health is holding an "adults only" fundraising event. (Last year's event was at Playboy's executive offices.)

The bottom line is that those pushing these programs don't see anything wrong with casual sex and aren't out to prevent it in any way. They are opposed to abstinence because their own lifestyle doesn't include it. Don't be fooled by the "abstinence plus" phrase - it's just their way of making these programs seem innocuous and more acceptable.

Read about it at
More Evidence that "Comprehensive" Sex Education Is a Bad Idea

Visit the No Room for Contraception Blog at www.contraceptionblog.com

A new study finds that levonorgestrel, the drug in Plan B emergency contraception, can possibly act as an abortifacient, at least some of the time.

Unfortunately this news story broke last Friday, when most people had the three day weekend on their mind so it went unnoticed over the weekend. However, NRFC pushed this story into the blogosphere early Monday and it was picked up by several news outlets, courtesy of Prolifeblogs.com. Kudos to PLB!

Anyway, now that it's the morning after this study has been re-reported, one has to wonder if those who swore up and down that Plan B can't cause abortions will concede this point? Don't hold your breath waiting - they have several mechanisms of denial and obfuscation, one of which revolves around the non-scientific definition of conception.

Back in 1965 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) changed their definition of conception from the moment of fertilization to the moment of implantation. So by this twisted definition, which doesn't hold up to scrutiny, preventing implantation isn't an abortion. Except word games don't change the reality that preventing implantation aborts the development and life of a newly created human.

But it will be interesting to see if these advocates and organizations concede any ground in this debate. Many of them chose to err on the side of death, and this study illustrates how those decisions may have turned out to be deadly.

Here is a partial list of organizations and publications which claim either that Plan B does not actually prevent implantation, or that preventing implantation is not an abortion. Needless to say, they are wrong on both points.

Erring on the side of Death - The Emergency Contraception Hall of Shame

Wrong about Emergency Contraception: NYC Dept of Health - The Morning-After Pill (Plan B) is now Easier to Get!

Wrong about Emergency Contraception: Wired Magazine - Plan B: Ignore the Science?

Wrong about Emergency Contraception: Princeton University - Does emergency contraception cause an abortion?

Wrong about Emergency Contraception: University of Minnesota - Emergency Contraception

Wrong about Emergency Contraception: New England Journal of Medicine - Plan B, Reproductive Rights, and Physician Activism

Wrong about Emergency Contraception: Harvard University Health Services - Emergency Contraception

Wrong about Emergency Contraception: Salon.com -Repeat after me: Plan B is not abortion

h/t Jivin J for prompting the update

These photographs on this Memorial Day of 2007 are posted in honor of those who served and paid the ultimate price for our freedom in America, and the rest of the world.

Click here to see the rest of the pictures at ProLifeNews.tv

Posted on Contraceptionblog.com , the official blog of the No Room for Contraception Campaign.

A study published in the journal Fertility and Sterility found that levonorgestrel, the drug contained in Plan B emergency contraception, does inhibit implantation after all, at least some of the time. (Preventing implantation interrupts an existing pregnancy and is an abortive mechanism.)

Despite the fact that the manufacturer lists that the drug may prohibit implantation, advocates of Plan B have argued that the drug does not act in this manner. Many point to the Chilean Institute for Reproductive Medicine studies on rats and monkeys as proof that Plan B doesn't cause abortions.

Others claim that the medical definition of pregnancy begins after implantation and therefore Plan B is not an abortifacient - perpetuating the myth that pregnancy begins at implantation.

The study found that in preventing ovulation, the drug was only 8%-49% effective depending on the amount of delay in using it. When the abortifacient mechanism, as well as other post-fertilizations mechanisms, had an effect, the effectiveness ranged from 16% to 90% in preventing both pregnancy and birth

This isn't good news for Catholic Hospitals that are distributing emergency contraception. And it's not good news for advocates claiming that emergency contraception prevents abortion - when it prohibits implantion, Plan B only changes when, not if, an abortion occurs.

But don't expect this study to make headlines across the nation. And don't expect pro-abortion bloggers to report on it either - facts don't matter when it comes to contraception , unless it helps their cause.

For more information on the controversy over the beginning of pregnancy, visit the pregnancy page.

The abstract can be found at:
http://www.fertstert.org/article/PIIS0015028206047327/abstract

h/t Catholic News Agency

h/t Jivin J for prompting the update

Medical News Today reported May 24:

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released documents obtained from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, detailing 1,637 reports of adverse reactions to the vaccination for human papillomavirus, Gardasil. Three deaths were related to the vaccine. One physician's assistant reported that a female patient "died of a blood clot three hours after getting the Gardasil vaccine." Two other reports, on girls 12 and 19, reported deaths relating to heart problems and/or blood clotting.

As of May 11, 2007, the 1,637 adverse vaccination reactions reported to the FDA via the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System included 371 serious reactions. Of the 42 women who received the vaccine while pregnant, 18 experienced side effects ranging from spontaneous abortion to fetal abnormities....

[M]ore serious side effects reported include paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and seizures.

"The FDA adverse event reports on the HPV vaccine read like a catalog of horrors," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Any state or local government now beset by Merck's lobbying campaigns to mandate this HPV vaccine for young girls ought to take a look at these adverse health reports. It looks as if an unproven vaccine with dangerous side effects is being pushed as a miracle drug."

Here are the three original copies of the VAER death reports, obtained from the Judicial Watch website. Click to see larger view:

Some in the movement call the Gonzales v. Carhart decision empty, while others call it a victory.

Michael New, a columnist for National Review and an assitant professor at the University of Alabama, wrote an excellent analysis on why the decision was good..

Some excerpts:

Now some critics may correctly point out that this decision by itself may not have a large impact on national abortion trends......Regardless, incremental legislation often serves an important informational purpose. Many people pay little attention to politics and are unaware of the permissive polices the United States has regarding abortion. Many do not know that in many states a minor can obtain an abortion with out her parents' knowledge. Furthermore, many do not know that a woman can obtain a legal abortion during her ninth month of pregnancy. As such, it is undeniable that the national campaign to end partial-birth abortion gained a considerable amount of publicity and was effective in moving the general public toward a more pro-life direction. (my emphasis)

New also speculates that the debate over the ban could have potentially contributed to the decline in abortions during the 1990s.

Indeed, during the 1990s the abortion rates fall the fastest in states that were passing lots of pro-life legislation. However, abortion numbers fell in almost every state -- even states that did not pass any pro-life laws. There is a good chance that the national campaign to end partial-birth abortion played a large role in this nationwide decline.

While Gonzales v. Carhart didn't end abortion, nevertheless it is a victory on many levels.

Finally, I would take New's speculation even futher and argue that there is a good chance that pro-life efforts have had an impact on reducing abortion since the mid 80s. While the table below does not prove causation, it nevertheless shows an interesting trend of increasing pro-life efforts and decreasing abortion rates. (Read the rest of the story for the table....)

Rocky Mountain News

To print this page, select File then Print from your browser
URL: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5551243,00.html
Leaders of anti-abortion groups criticize Dobson
By Associated Press
May 23, 2007

COLORADO SPRINGS -- Leaders of four anti-abortion groups criticized Focus on the Family founder James Dobson today, saying he misrepresented a Supreme Court decision that upheld a ban on a controversial abortion technique.

In a full-page ad in The Gazette newspaper in Colorado Springs, the group said Dobson wrongly characterized the court's April ruling as a victory for abortion foes. The ad said the ruling will actually encourage medical professionals to find "less shocking" methods than late-term abortions, which abortion opponents often call "partial-birth abortion."

"Dr. Dobson, you mislead Christians claiming this ruling will 'protect children.' The court granted no authority to save the life of even a single child," the ad said. It concludes by asking Dobson to "please repent."

A spokesman for Dobson did not immediately return a call.

Dobson's conservative Christian ministry is based in Colorado Springs.

The letter is signed by Brian Rohrbough, president of Colorado Right to Life; the Rev. Tom Euteneuer, president of Human Life International; Flip Benham, director of Operation Rescue/Operation Save America; Judie Brown, president of American Life League; and Bob Enyart, pastor of Denver Bible Church.

Rohrbough is the father of Daniel Rohrbough, a Columbine High School student who was killed in the April 20, 1999, massacre.

Copyright 2007, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.

Click here to go to ProLifeNews.tv to watch the broadcast live from noon until 1:00 pm. Rev. Rob Schenck is filling you in on the latest info on the candidates and their religion.

Click here to listen to the broadcast at NationalProLifeRadio.net

It appears liberals will not only concede placing a timeline for troop withdrawal from Iraq in the emergency defense spending bill, they will also concede loosening military abortion policy.

One news report called the former "a significant concession to Bush and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill."

The latter is equally significant.

Remarkably, despite a Democrat majority in the House, missing from the defense appropriations bill will be an amendment to fund military abortions overseas.

What makes this remarkable is this will be the first year since 1996 liberals have not attempted to add this provision....

Another event remarkable in that it didn't happen occurred May 16 when Democrat pro-abort Rep. Michael Michaud failed to submit his amendment on the House floor that would have required all military pharmacies to stock the morning-after pill....

Word is Democrat leadership counted the votes, saw they were short, and told Michaud to spare them all the embarrassment....

Continue reading my column today, "Abortion foes dodge military bullet," on WorldNetDaily.com.

Fourth-year medical student Megan Lederer recently helped deliver a premature baby at barely six months gestation. The newborn was tiny, unimaginably fragile, but she survived.

She could have, she decided. She would have felt an obligation.

My heart leapt when I read the accusation by Political Research Associates, a group "devoted to the study and documentation of right wing political movements in the United States," and which consults for "groups... organizing to oppose campaigns undertaken by the radical right," in the May 20 Somerville News:

"The Christian right is so common now people don't realize the degree to which it has become part of our thinking about the way things should be done," [PRA co-founder and ACLU member Chip Berlet] said.

The parlance of the anti-choice movement, for example, has become institutionalized in Boston's newspaper of record. "Unborn child is now used by the Boston Globe instead of fetus," [senior researcher Pat] Chamberlain said.

My, such paranoia about a perfectly legitimate term.

However, a check of the Boston Globe revealed it has used "fetus" in articles 2,548 times dating back to 1979, when its archives listing began, and "unborn child" only 1,160 times. A check to see whether PRA's fear is a recent development showed BG has used "fetus" 39 times in 2007 and "unborn child" 33 times. So, maybe so?

No, it appears BG may only use the term "unborn child" when "fetus" would sound ridiculous:

Julia Roberts plans to save money by dressing her unborn child in hand-me-downs and charity shop clothes. (May 4, 2007)

If you want to know if your marriage will work or what to name your unborn child and are looking for an alternative to laying out the tarot cards, reading the tea leaves, or heading to a psychic.... (April 27, 2007)

A man tried to hire someone to kill his unborn child after learning his ex-girlfriend was pregnant and about to give birth.... [Charles] Young indicated he wanted his ex-girlfriend injured in such a way that the unborn child would die, the sheriff said.... (Oct. 13, 2006)

Ridiculous is what PRA is if it thinks MSM is coming anywhere close to treating our topic with objectivity.

And PRA apparently needs researchers who don't panic and lose their wits when reading "unborn child."

[The April 27 photo of Roberts, pregnant with her third fetus, is courtesy of People.]

News reports bring us the sad news that baby Emilio Gonzales passed away Saturday night. May his mother find comfort in this time of grief, satisfied with their bold stand for Emilio's life. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family.

A Pittsburgh woman was charged with "abuse of a corpse" after the body of a baby was found in the freezer. Remarkably, the charges might not stick:

Lt. Daniel Herrmann said the abuse of a corpse charge applies only to human beings. Under the law, he said, a fetus is not considered a human being.

Okay, Americans. George Bush always reminds us of what a good hearted people we all are, every time he gives a speech. If we're all so good hearted how did such a moral trainwreck happen that we can't identify a human being when we find one in the freezer? The photo in this post was taken by the new 4D ultrasound machines. This is a baby in the womb. Or is it? What exactly is in the picture? If it's not a human being than what is it? A baby leopard? A paramecium? Is it a close-up shot of a cryptosporidium? A mold spore? A camel in early gestation?

There's really no question that the child's body is that of a human. This case reveals the ugly truth that an entire category of defenseless individuals are not considered worthy of protection by a government that at one time stood for "liberty and justice for all".

From their latest email:

One month ago today, the Supreme Court - with two new Bush appointees - upheld the Federal Abortion Ban.

Dr. Paul Schenck - National Pro-Life Action Center

The National Pro-Life Action Center, the Christian Defense Coalition, Generation Life and the National Black Pro-Life Union held a press conference yesterday at the Department of Justice building in Washington D.C. to encourage justice officials to uphold the new partial birth abortion ban which was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Click here to continue reading and to view the video at ProLifeNews.tv

Click here to go to ProLifeNews.tv and watch the live video or hear the audio live from across the street from the Supreme Court!

By Ruben Obregon

Pro-lifers ready for a comeback, an article in the Washington Times, takes a look a the future of the pro-life movement.

In this article, Daniel McConchie, executive director of Americans United For Life, is quoted as saying:

"Many pro-life groups don't take a stand on contraception -- 'We're happy for any way to avoid abortion,' Mr. McConchie said -- and most Americans are likely to support a more-birth-control approach because so many of them use it themselves."

Except that a "more-birth-control" approach hasn't caused a reduction in abortion since abortion was legalized in all 50 states.

In fact, amongst adolescents, contraception has only helped to make the abortion situation worse. Why?

For the most part, teens are forward looking in their decisions to become sexually active, and the option to use contraception has a profound effect on these decisions.

According to the study Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954-2003, the increase in premarital sex amongst a group of teens turning 15 during the years 1964-1973 "may be partly due to increased availability of effective contraception (in particular, the pill), which made it less likely that sex would lead to pregnancy." (Finer)

The influence of contraceptives on adolescents is reflected in the change in attitudes and behaviors concerning premarital sex.

In the late 1950s, only 12% of young women approved of premarital sex, and by the 1980s that figured jumped to 73%. (Wells) Much of the change occurred between 1960 and 1969, prior to Roe v. Wade, when contraceptives became increasingly available to more and more unmarried women despite a patchwork of state restrictions.

The change in attitudes and behaviors regarding premarital sex was not isolated to the 60s - it has carried forward through subsequent generations, though to varying degrees. While some blame the sexual revolution for this problem, the revolution would have died much earlier were it not for contraception.

The increase in the number of sexually active adolescents, combined with the typical failure rates (and non use) of contraception, is reflected in the abortion and pregnancy rates which continued to rise well into the 1980s.

Abortion rates for women aged 15-19 started to fall in the mid to late 80s, and the pregnancy rates would start to fall in 1991. The main reasons for these declines are parental involvement laws, Medicaid restrictions, increased abstinence, and an improved economy. Contraception, contrary to the claims of many, was not the primary reason for the declines.

Its time that the pro-life movement pulled its collective head out of the sand and address the issue of contraception. Contrary to the fears of many, this doesn't mean calling for a ban on it. Rather, the focus should be on informing the public on the many negative aspects of contraception, including how it affects teen pregnancy and abortion rates.

Ruben is the President and co-founder of the No Room for Contraception Campaign. The NRFC website is located at http://www.noroomforcontraception.com

References

Finer LB, Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954-2003, Public Health Reports, January - Febrary 2007, Volume 122, pp. 73-78, The Guttmacher Institute, available at http://www.publichealthreports.org/userfiles/122_1/12_PHR122-1_73-78.pdf

Wells, BE, Twenge, Changes in Young People's Sexual Behavoir and Attitudes, 1943-1999: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis, Review of General Psychology, 2005, Vol 9, No 3, pp. 249-261, American Psychological Association

Rudy Giuliani has apparently decided if he can't placate pro-lifers, he will overthrow them.

The New York Times reported May 10 the Republican presidential candidate has decided to embrace his pro-abortion position after muddling it in recent days, trying to take a former-radical-liberal-now-thoughtful-liberal-yet-conservative-friendly stance.

Poll numbers falling, Giuliani has chucked all that and developed an abortion pride strategy based on "Tsunami Tuesday," the date many liberal states have bumped up their primary to, ahead of primaries of more conservative states. According to the Times:

Mr. Giuliani's campaign ... is eyeing a path to the nomination that would try to de-emphasize the early states in which abortion opponents wield a great deal of influence. Instead, they would focus on the so-called mega-primary of Feb. 5, in which voters in states like California, New York and New Jersey are likely to be more receptive to Mr. Giuliani's social views than voters in Iowa and South Carolina.

Giuliani is gambling he can win the nomination as the sole abortion enthusiast from a field of 10 with a minority of like-minded social liberals.

According to Time magazine, Giuliani has "decided that the reign of social conservatives is coming to an end. 'He understands that there are a lot of Republicans out there who are sick of everyone kowtowing to the single-issue extremists,' said one veteran Republican observer in Washington. 'He's breaking from the pack.'"

(Why does the mainstream media never question whether Democrat voters are getting sick of their party's extremists, like the entire lot of presidential candidates, all of whom support partial-birth abortion?)

The conservative response, via the Times...

Continue reading my column today, "Rudy's unholy jihad," on WorldNetDaily.com.

Even 'liberal lefty' Chris Mathews calls it a "nasty shot."

You can imagine how it played out. Producer to intern: "We need a fawning description of him from the White House website to show how influential he was with conservatives." Intern to producer: "Great! I'll just google white house falwell..."

[For the Kool-Aid drinkers, we probably need to note that Josh's final comment on how easy it is to mistake "whitehouse.org" as the official Whitehouse website, is a highly facetious remark. After all, moonbats have a lot of trouble understanding humor and sarcasm, especially when they're the target.]

I quess it's just a sign of our times and the nature of the liberal media we put up with.

Cross posted from Hyscience

It would be difficult to capture the influence and impact Jerry Falwell has had on American society. Certainly the man has lived his life passionately, proclaiming the truth in an authentic manner. He often spoke when others where silent, bringing clarity, demanding justice and offering hope.

Having heard the news of his passing, we celebrate his life, confident that he has entered into that eternal rest, having been secured salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Our prayers and sympathies are with his loved ones who grieve his absence.

Among his innumerable speeches, books and articles I found this 2002 editorial relevant to our pro-life focus:

.... I believe the silent majority of Americans opposes the modern holocaust known as abortion on demand. But therein lies the key problem - silence.

It is high time that Americans who support the life of the unborn relinquish their comfortable existence and become active in winning this critical battle.

I am proudly and unapologetically pro-life. I utilize every opportunity to declare my opposition to abortion and my support of life. My ministry has operated the Liberty Godparent Home for unwed mothers for 20 years. Thousands of girls have chosen life over abortion through this program.

We also operate the Family Life Services Adoption Agency, which places newborn babies with Christian couples who cannot have children of their own.

The reward of these two ministries is that babies live.

What is the reward of the abortion-rights movement? Babies die.

It's that simple, really.

I urge readers to get involved in the pro-life movement. Start a pro-life association in your neighborhood or church. Donate to pro-life organizations. Become a volunteer at a home for unwed mothers in your area - there are thousands of them nationwide. Urge your area schools to adopt abstinence programs.

Do whatever it takes to protect the unborn!

We live in a culture of death that the abortion-rights community has introduced and nurtured. It behooves each one of us to become proactive in reclaiming the superiority in this battle for innocent life.

A great source of excitement for me has been blogging on the pharma industry's lucrative idea earlier this year, which foolish legislators - almost all liberal - ran with, to mandate the HPV vaccine for all 11- and 12-year-old girls. The New York Times even disparaged one of my HPV posts, which is always a badge of honor.

When the red flags raised became too numerous to count, MSM quietly quit hyping the vaccine, as did those legislators, who it turns out were admitted tools of big pharma.

But here are we, conservative bloggers, continuing to drive nails in the HPV vaccine mandate's coffin by relaying news you'll only find in 9 pt. font in MSM newspapers:

First, a story about the guy who started all the flak back in February. Reported Kaiser News on May 9:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) on Tuesday announced that he will not veto a bill (HB 1098) that will prevent mandatory human papillomavirus vaccination for middle school girls in the state until 2011, allowing the measure to become law without his signature....

Perry on Feb. 2 issued an executive order mandating that all girls entering the sixth grade beginning in September 2008 receive an HPV vaccine.

Perry really had no choice. The House and Senate both passed the slapdown measure by a veto-proof majority.

More importantly comes this news, from the Los Angeles Times, May 10:

New data on the controversial HPV vaccine designed to prevent cervical cancer have raised questions about its efficacy, researchers are reporting Thursday, undercutting efforts in many states to make vaccination mandatory.

Although the Merck vaccine, called Gardasil, blocked nearly 100 percent of infections by the two HPV strains it targets, it reduced the incidence of cancer precursors by only 17 percent overall.

Part of the reason was that many of the teenage girls and young women in the three-year study already had been exposed to the virus, according to the report in the New England Journal of Medicine.

But the data also hinted that blocking the targeted strains may have opened an ecological niche that allows the flourishing of HPV strains previously considered to be minor players, partially offsetting the vaccine's protection....

Overall, the new results indicate that the vaccine is not living up to its initial prospects. The findings show that 129 women would have to be vaccinated to prevent one precancerous lesion....

It looks as if the speculation of whether or not Fred Thompson will announce a presidential bid is down to a matter of not "if" but "when," and pro-life advocates appear to be eager to have a candidate with consistent views on abortion:

With the three leading Republican candidates for president having inconsistent views on abortion and other pro-life issues, some pro-life voters may be looking for an alternative with a strong chance of capturing the GOP presidential nod. Pro-life advocates say Fred Thompson is that candidate and will announce a bid soon.

Thompson is an actor, attorney and former senator from the state of Tennessee who says he strongly opposes abortion.

The Washington Times interviewed two pro-life advocates who wished to remain anonymous but indicated that Thompson will announce a presidential bid "in a matter of weeks."

"It's not 'if' but 'when,' he will announce," one pro-life advocate -- described as an evangelic Protestant -- told the Times.

Anyone who has taken a Constitution class in high school knows that the First Amendment protects the right of all people to express almost any idea they want in the public square (with the exceptions of inciting riots, threats of violence, etc). Yet there is one group the various pundits insist need to be silenced for the sake of our nation and that is Christians.

Recently, Lou Dobbs lamented the influence religion has on politics. He said churches "are driving that political adventurism as those leaders conflate religion and politics." Apparently he suggests the government should do something about shutting up those damn Christians who keep expressing their points of view.

Why does the drive-by media continue to give radical assisted suicide proponents a platform?

It's almost like returning to the scene of the crime.

Two days after his scheduled release from prison on June 1, Jack "Dr. Death" Kevorkian, one of the most vocal proponents for assisted suicide for the terminally ill, will appear Sunday, June 3 on "60 Minutes".

The two-member Michigan Parole Board voted in December to grant parole on June 1 to Kevorkian with the promise that he won't assist in any more suicides.

More at the North Country Gazette

(Photo LifeSiteNews.com)

Will conservatives vote for Rudolph Giuliani? Not only did he donate money to Planned Parenthood, he is outspoken about his pro-abortion views. Wednesday he said "Ultimately, there has to be a right to choose,".

Giuliani and his aides have a few choice comments on the abortion issue:

From the New York Times:

Mr. Giuliani hinted at what aides said would be his uncompromising position on abortion rights yesterday in Huntsville, Ala., where he was besieged with questions about abortion and his donations to Planned Parenthood. "Ultimately, there has to be a right to choose," he said.

Click here to continue reading at NationalProLifeRadio.net

Posted on the No Room For Contraception Campaign's blog by Ruben (http://www.contraceptionblog.com)

A study in the New England Journal of Medicine, Case-Control Study of Human Papillomavirus and Oropharyngeal Cancer, found that "a high lifetime number of vaginal-sex partners (26 or more) was associated with oropharyngeal cancer ...as was a high lifetime number of oral-sex partners (6 or more)"

The conclusion of the study?

"Oral HPV infection is strongly associated with oropharyngeal cancer among subjects with or without the established risk factors of tobacco and alcohol use."

Some mistakenly think that only sexual intercourse is risky - the HPV oral-sex link should help point out that oral sex can be risky as well.

This is just one more reason to teach abstinence to both adolescents and young adults.

It's also a reason to pursue a vaccine for HPV. While some may argue that this will lower the consequences of premarital sex, there is the other side of the coin: What if infection takes place after vows are exchanged? Disease prevention is never wrong, and the case against premarital sex does not rest on health risks alone.

Hat tip: Britt Shankle

This time a Planned Parenthood in Ohio is being sued by a teenager who alleges she was impregnated by her father, told a Planned Parenthood employee when she was there for an abortion and Planned Parenthood never reported the sexual abuse.

In a civil suit filed today in Warren County Common Pleas Court, the teen, formerly of Mason, says she disclosed the sexual abuse to a Planned Parenthood employee when she and her father went to the agency's Mount Auburn clinic to abort her pregnancy in November 2004.

But no police report was filed - and as a result, the abuse continued for another year and a half, the suit says.

Our Little Extras: A Mother's Day Down syndrome celebration

Here it is! Please share and rejoice with family and friends. Although this is my gift for Mothers Day 2007, the album will be an ongoing project, so it's never too late to send me pictures to include.

Though I started working on the album a while ago, it seems timely considering the recent news that 90% of mothers receiving a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome are aborting their babies.

The following article in today's New York Times: Prenatal Test Puts Down Syndrome in Hard Focus - should give us all pause.

What makes a person disposable? Those of us who've had children with Down syndrome - and survived to tell the tale :) - would tell any parent that no matter the grieving process they go through at the loss of their dream of a "perfect" child, it doesn't take long to learn that the child we received was actually a gift in a different-looking package.

Rosie O'Donnell has confounded me. She has taken a pro-life position, and it has ticked me off.

On May 1, the radical liberal (thinks 9-11 was an inside job) posted this Haiku crockapoo on her blog following the announcement by her conservative sparring partner on "The View," Elizabeth Hasselbeck, that she was pregnant:

on the view
u have seen my last hasselbeck spat
2 day was it
no more - its done

there is a new life
there - inside
and in the end
what else matters

Revering the miracle of pregnancy is great. Showing consideration, like giving a pregnant mother a seat on the bus, is also great.

But patronizing, no.

I cannot imagine anyone else in the public eye linguistically patting a pregnant mother on the tummy as O'Donnell did, saying, in so many words, "I have decided to no longer debate issues of the day with you for fear you might faint from overexcitement."

I could endure some of that, and having been pregnant over two years of my life, I have.

But not from O'Donnell. She's repulsively hypocritical on this issue, just as eager to toss a "new life" to human wolves if it suits her politically or personally.

Less than two weeks prior on "The View," O'Donnell defended the most disgusting procedure of them all (to date), partial-birth abortion....

How I wish Elizabeth had announced her pregnancy before this exchange....

Continue reading my column today, "Rosie's pro-life Haiku crockapoo," on WorldNetDaily.com.

Today, after 21 years and an unprecedented three hearings before the U.S. Supreme Court, NOW vs. Scheidler was finally settled in a U.S. District Court in Chicago, and NOW may have lost big.

You can read the history of the case here.

This has always been a free speech case. Many liberal activists, including PETA and Martin Sheen, filed amicus briefs in support of Scheidler.

You can read the press release by Scheidler's attorney here, or on page two of this blog.

I just spoke with the attorney, Tom Brejcha, to understand how the tables may have been turned on NOW. Here is how Tom explained today's court decision:

It's a little complicated. It was a class action, which means all the clinics in the country, all the women in the country who are members of NOW, and any women who ever felt intimidated by pro-life people in the country were brought into this case.

NOW sued every pro-life activist organization with a title.

In a way the whole abortion crowd sued the whole pro-life activist movement. Importantly, all the clinics were involved except a few who dropped out. Then-PP president Alan Guttmacher sealed the list of involved clinics.

There's a doctrine in law that when you file a lawsuit, it has to include every claim A brings against B. NOW vs. Scheidler included every event and transaction that ever occurred with an abortion provider from 1984 for as long as the case was pending.

Now we have a final judgment that includes anyone in the pro-life movement who was accused of any wrong doing at or about the premises at an abortion clinic - threats, harrassement, disorderly conduct - if that clinic hasn't dropped out of the case. So this final judgmenet can be brought into oourt to say the case is barred against that pro-lifer, because all claims have been dismissed.

Any lawsuit filed against a pro-lifer since 1984 is potentially dismissable, up to the date of the jdugement.

The point is, NOW said our guys had to answer for anything anybody did in the pro-life movement. But it works both ways. They said on record the co-conspirators were up to one million people.

I am going to put a kit together to send papers to whoever needs it to raise a defense. Mr. and Mrs. Anybody may say that they won this case.

There's a lot of paper you could throw at any prosecutor in the country. Boy, I'm gonna get that paper ready to throw. They wanted to make this thing top down against activism. They asked for it, they got it.

Congratulations to Joe and Ann Scheidler and Tom Brejcha!

[Hat tip: Marathon Pundit]

Up until this morning, I strongly believed that at this particular time in U.S. history, the Republican party offers the best chance to maintain or improve laws to protect the value of human life, and that Rudy Giuliani is likely to have the best chance of winning, for now, of any of the plethora of Republicans hoping to win in 08. I have not particularly liked all his views, and I could even be wrong about his chances of winning. However, until now, this is what I believed to be the case.

But that was up until this morning when I read records show that in the '90s he contributed money at least six times to Planned Parenthood. And this makes me mad as hell.

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani in his campaign appearances this year has stated that he personally abhors abortion, even though he supports keeping a legal right to choose. But records show that in the '90s he contributed money at least six times to Planned Parenthood, one of the country's leading abortion rights groups and its top provider of abortions.

Federal tax returns made public by the former New York mayor show that he and his then-wife, Donna Hanover, made personal donations to national, state and city chapters of Planned Parenthood totaling $900 in 1993, 1994, 1998 and 1999.

The returns have been on the public record for years, but the detail about Giuliani's support for Planned Parenthood -- along with e-mailed copies of the returns -- was provided to The Politico by aides to a rival campaign, who insisted on not being identified.

As many in the West, and particularly the media, continue to ignore the value of human life and the sanctity of marriage, and promote abortion, same-sex marriage, and euthanasia as expressions of "human progress," the Vatican suffers no such delusions:

As Italy weighs giving unmarried gay and heterosexual couples legal recognition, the Vatican's second highest ranking doctrinal called same-sex marriage, abortion, and euthanasia forms of "terrorism with a human face," reports Reuters.

Archbishop Angelo Amato, secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said in a speech to chaplains that there are "evils that remain almost invisible" because the media is touting them as an "expression of human progress."

Amato listed same-sex marriage among these "evils" and said, "Parliaments of so-called civilized nations where laws contrary to the nature of the human being are being promulgated, such as the approval of marriage between people of the same sex." He also called abortion clinics "slaughterhouses of human beings." He blamed the media for using rhetoric "to hide the tragic reality of the facts," such as calling euthanasia "death with dignity." (The Advocate)

The Family Research Council, in its Washington Update, comments on the disparity between goals of parents and their elected representatives:

While six states have announced their intent to refuse federal funding for abstinence-only education, a new Zogby poll points to just how out of touch those state leaders are with the people they serve. Despite leftwing pressure to abandon abstinence-only education, a survey of over 1,000 parents found overwhelming support for the programs. When the differences between comprehensive and abstinence education were explained, moms and dads supported abstinence by a two-to-one margin. Not only do 83% of parents want their children to save sex until marriage, but a majority of families believe that programs should reinforce the abstinence message when broaching sex ed. Not surprisingly, two of three parents think the potency of the "waiting to have sex" message is lost when programs demonstrate contraceptive use. As FRC prepares to meet with Capitol Hill members and staff on May 22 for Abstinence Day, this poll is yet another reason why Congress should be persuaded to reauthorize funding for Title V abstinence education this June. Already, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and others have openly attacked abstinence programs and made clear their intentions of redirecting that money to groups like Planned Parenthood. Their push for birth control over self-control will be mightily challenged by FRC's vice president for government affairs, Tom McClusky, who was just named by The Hill newspaper as one of "The Greatest in Helping the Grassroots Grow." As Tom says, his voice would carry very little weight on the Hill without yours. Urge your congressmen to uphold the wishes of parents across America who believe in abstinence education as the way to promote healthy and happy futures for kids.

Last week, the US Senate unanimously approved SC Republican Jim DeMint's amendment to the FDA reauthorization bill stating the agency must have risk assessment and solution strategies in place with the manufacturer of RU-486 within seven months after the bill takes effect.

Pro-aborts in the Democrat-controlled body must have finally conducted a self risk assessment and determined they were close to being labeled as anti-women's health and safety if they didn't do something about RU-486.

Only last month, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee rejected Sen. Tom Coburn's amendment mostly on party lines, 12-8, to suspend sales of RU-486 altogether. This is very serious.

The abortion industry, mindless of women's health if it interferes with abortion, bulldozed FDA approval of RU-486 during the waning Clinton days in 2000 via an acceleration process supposed to be reserved for "life-threatening illnesses."

RU-486 is interesting in that it doesn't protect against life-threatening illnesses, it causes lives to end, and apparently not just preborn children. Perhaps the FDA became confused.

Since its rush approval, RU-486 has been linked to the deaths of at least seven American women, most due to toxic shock syndrome from the deadly bactium Clostridium sordellii, which may be an emerging risk of using RU-486.

The much publicized death of 18-year-old Holly Patterson in 2003 from RU-486 should have moved the FDA to pull RU-486 off the market, but it did not. It merely added a list of risks to RU-486's label.

The FDA has now received reports of 1,050 additional women who experienced adverse events from the RU-486 regimen including 9 life-threatening incidents, 232 hospitalizations, 116 blood transfusions, and 88 cases of infection, according to DeMint.

By Bobby Schindler

I sat in confusion last Thursday evening while watching the GOP Presidential debate. All but one of the candidates proudly expressed their pro-life positions, and then just a short time later, in response to a question on the Terri Schiavo case, some of them stated that the courts should decide whether or not it was acceptable for an innocent disabled woman to be starved and dehydrated to death.

Wait a second, wasn't it the courts that made it legal to kill unborn children? How can one be against the courts permitting the deliberate killing of the unborn, but find it perfectly okay for the courts to purposely starve and dehydrate an innocent disabled woman to death?

As far as I'm concerned, you can't call yourself pro-life and be against one and for the other. This is why I was more than a little surprised by the responses the frontrunners and even a few of the second tier candidates gave. Their answers clearly reflected the ongoing influence of the mainstream media and its tendency to report only biased polls regarding my sister's circumstances.

I believe that the question was a set-up by moderator Chris Matthews to highlight this confusion and division in the GOP ranks on the issue of euthanasia.

Remember this is the same Chris Matthews that so heartlessly said the following about my father during an interview with Don Imus at the time that my sister was being dehydrated to death, "The parents... the father seems to be having, I hate to say this, a good time."

Clearly, Mr. Matthews is not only intolerant towards the rights of people like Terri to live, but he is also lacking in a basic tenet of human decency which dictates that we not attack people in the midst of their suffering.

Regardless of Matthew's negative intentions, however, imagine for a second if all the Republican candidates were unified and emphatic in stating how troubling it is that a nation which once protected our disabled citizens is now starving and dehydrating to death the most vulnerable among us.

However, many candidates, as well as the majority of the American people, don't realize the true nature of what was at stake in Terri's case, let alone the larger issue. Contrary to what the mainstream media would have you believe, Terri's situation was not just a pro-life matter but also a disability rights issue. It was not about someone's "right-to-die", nor was it an "end-of-life" issue as was so often reported. Terri was a healthy young woman with a profound brain injury. She was not dying, she did not suffer from any "killer" disease, she was alert and interacted with her friends and family, and she was deliberately and cruelly starved to death.

Moreover, Terri's case was not "hijacked" by the religious right as has so often been claimed by the secular press. There were 30 disability rights groups supporting my sister in her struggle for life. Ironically, at the time Terri's case was receiving the most media attention, there were more disability organizations that were publicly speaking out in support of Terri's life than pro-life organizations. I can guarantee you never heard that on the evening news.

Last Thursday's debate gave candidates an opportunity to show their support of and speak directly to the disability rights community. This community has been trying to get the government to do more to protect the disabled, pleading for help on their behalf long before my sister's case made national and international headlines. In fact, if government would have been listening to the disabled community, Terri's case wouldn't have required Congressional involvement in the first place.

Sadly, some candidates played right into the hands of the partisan moderator, hemming and hawing about how this "was an issue better left to the courts". Can't you just imagine the thrill that gave Matthews?

My sister's case was arguably one of the most egregious violations of an American citizen's basic human rights in our nation's history. The way it stands now, heinous criminals on death row have more protection and are treated with more dignity than people like Terri. Congress saw this and intervened to protect her.

Rather than suffer the ire of a hostile media and a largely uneducated public, they should be commended for stepping in to protect the life of one of their most vulnerable constituents. Not only was it was appropriate for Congress to try and help Terri, but it is what they are morally obligated to do in such cases.

And despite Terri's death, it is my hope that all of our politicians will realize that this is one of the most significant issues facing our nation today, and pledge their unwavering commitment to do everything in their power to protect all innocent disabled persons from being cruelly starved and dehydrated to death.

While it is too late for Terri, tens of thousands of other "Terris" are still among us.

Just in case you haven't already seen this video that's been around awhile, you should watch it now (hat tip to "April" who emailed this in):

And if you happen to know someone who is thinking about having an abortion - ask them to watch this, and turn up their speakers: On Abortion and Prolife - "Morning has broken"

From the original post at Hyscience - with more ...

Join us today for the The Monthly Call for Life at MonthlyCallForLife.com. Today is the first Saturday after the first Friday. Go to an abortion mill in your area and pray, stand with a sign, or whatever you want to peacefully do for a couple of hours. Click here if you want to print out flyers, Life Cards or the sign that we use. It is a picture of my daughter 22 years ago. She agreed to be the poster child for our efforts. :)

No matter what, go to the abortion mill, even if all you do is stand there. Women drive by & see if there is a Pro-Life person standing there. If there is, some continue driving & don't come back.

Many of you said that it is difficult for you to participate in an outside event on Friday, so here is your chance! Go to MonthlyCallForLife.com & click on Calendar to find a picket or location to pray near you. If you want to start your own or are already picketing or praying at a location, email us at events@prolifeunity.com and we will post it on the calendar.

If you are in the Washington D.C. area you can join us in Falls Church, Virginia from 10:00 am to noon at 900 South Washington Street, or go to the many other abortion mills where people are praying.

There are other efforts in the D.C. area and around the country. Go to ProLifeUnity.com & click on Calendar for more information.

Go to ProLifeNews.tv for up to date news on our events & to send information & pictures about your events.

MonthlyCallForLife.com

United we stand - Divided they die - Pass it on

Every few months the abstinence education advocates and the comprehensive sex ed advocates trade studies back and forth. "Comprehensive sex ed works!" "Abstinence education works!" The back-and-forth clubbing of studies may make for good headlines but largely misses the point.

While it can be argued that comprehensive sex ed may increase sexual activity (much like the anti-drug program DARE has increased teen drug use in many cases), the success or failure of abstinence education relies on factors largely outside the classroom. Simplistic one-factor statistical analysis is not useful in dealing with a problem that involves more than one variable.

It's the first Friday of the month & it's time to Call for Life!

Every month on the first Friday we call and/or email our representatives to let them know that they need to defend life. What do I say & who do I call? Go to MonthlyCallForLife.com for everything you need to know and do.

When we finally end the horror of abortion, will you be one of those who stood up for LIFE?

Pick up the phone and call your representatives right now. If you have time, send them an email as well. Remember to come out to an abortion mill tomorrow and pray for the women who are going in & for the babies who probably won't make it out.

The unborn only have us. If we don't call for them, who will?

MonthlyCallForLife.com

United we stand - Divided they die - Pass it on

Late this afternoon President Bush sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stating he will "veto any legsilation that weakens current federal policies and laws on abortion, or that encourages the destruction of human life at any stage."

Over the past decades many important pro-life riders have been attached to appropriations bills, ensuring taxpayer funds do not support funding for abortion, embryo destruction, and coercive population programs, and also providing conscience protections, etc.

Democrats are expected to drop all those provisions as well as attach riders to fund the abortion industry in various ways. Planned Parenthood advocacy alerts have stated they want a $100 million increase for Title X, for instance.

President Bush has said not to bother.

His letter follows a letter 155 pro-life congressmen sent him on March 30 encouraging him to take just that stand and promising to vote to sustain any such veto. 146 votes are necessary to sustain a veto.

We'll see if Democrats will waste everyone's time uselessly pandering to pro-aborts. They likely will.

Bravo to pro-life congressmen and President Bush.

The war against abstinence education wages on across the country. The comprehensive sex ed crowd was apoplectic with the results of a Mathematica study that showed kids who had abstinence education programs were just as likely to engage in sexual activity with the same rates of "dangerous" behavior. The flip side of the study showed that abstinence education also "did no harm" in that the "risky" behaviors were just as frequent between both groups, but that got ignored. Predictably, the studies that show abstinence ed works also go ignored.

The study itself has recycled some of the same claims that come up every time someone objects to abstinence education. Representative Waxman did a study in 2004 that purported to show all the damage abstinence education does, but between outright stupid objections and showing that some programs do work, his attempt failed.

Dr. Paul Schenck

The 2007 Bible Reading Marathon kicked off on Sunday in Washington D.C. at our Nation's Capitol. The Capitol building is clearly visible in the background, so you can see how our representatives in government will have a hard time ignoring our prayers.

Approximately 500 people will read the word of God aloud, 24 hours a day, until 2:00 pm Thursday the 3rd, the official National Day of Prayer.

Click here to read the rest and to see a photo slideshow from the opening of this event

"The female head of a church with a practicing homosexual bishop planning to "marry" his lover, a church that could accept into seminary the adulterous homosexual governor of New Jersey, a church that embraces splitting open babies' skulls and vacuuming their brains out, is complaining about Nigerian Anglican bishops coming to Virginia this weekend" to formally install the head of a parallel denomination, being a violation of ancient customs.

Cross posted from Hyscience.

As a male reading Emma's Journal by Juli Loesch Wiley, I was somewhat uncomfortable. The book reads is if I picked up a diary of a woman who I did not know and started flipping through it. The account is a frank and open recollection of a 5 year period of the author's life. That is, by far, the book's biggest strength.

Juli is a vastly talented writer and it comes out in her book. She describes events and her inner struggles with wit and candor. She writes from the backdrop of the 80s as a peace activist and pro-life activist. That combination of activities when you include a serious and devout Catholic faith creates a unique life situation that comes out in the first few chapters.

Promoters call it the Freedom of Choice Act, which is actually true. If passed, it would retroactively and forever free the abortion industry to infinity and beyond from every "federal, state and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy [and] practice," encumbering abortion in any way whatsoever.

Pro-aborts reintroduced FOCA immediately following the Supreme Court's April 18 decision upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban with expressions of financial panic not seen since the stock market crashed in 1929.

Pro-lifers have aborted FOCA several times since the 1980s, but terrified pro-abortion politicians and abortion-industry thugs fearing for their deathlihood seized on the Supreme partial-birth abortion decision to attempt a do-over.

Public relations aficionados that they are, Planned Parenthood and other industry leeches reassured us in press statements they intended not just to rescue partial-birth abortion for America but also every other equally "seismic" and "grim" Supreme Court anti-abortion decision that might be made ever after....

Under FOCA, no abortion procedure could be touched with a 10-foot legal crochet hook.... This would have to include Everything Delivered But The Big Toe Abortions, which Sen. Barbara Boxer infamously refused to say should be illegal during an enlightening exchange with then-Sen. Rick Santorum on the Senate floor in 1999....

Continue reading my column today, "The Forced Abortion Act," on WorldNetDaily.com.

Roman Catholic Archbishop Raymond Burke did not attend a fundraiser headlined by singer Sheryl Crow because he disagrees with her support of abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research.

Crystal added, "After all, charity begins at home because that's where he is."

Today in Washington there will be a hearing in the House Subcommittee on Health on post-partum depression.

IL Democrat Rep. Bobby Rush will introduce noncontroversial legislation that directs the National Institutes of Health to expand research into post-partum depression and the Dept. of Health & Human Services to make grants for services for women with post-partum depression and their families.

Now wouldn't common sense dictate that if there is such a malady as post-partum depression there must be such a malady as post-abortion depression?

Yet post-abortion depression goes widely unrecognized - even disparaged - and untreated.

Realizing the lack of information available on post-abortion depression, Republicans have chosen to use their opportunity today to call witnesses to discuss post-abortion depression. Bravo.

They will be Michaelene Fredenburg and Dr. Priscilla Coleman. Michaelene will speak as a post-abortive woman whose mental health was severely impacted afterward. Dr. Coleman of Bowling Green State University will give testimony on the existing research regarding post-abortion depression.

Republicans will also introduce the Post-Abortion Depression Research and Care Act. This bill provides $15 million to the NIH to research the emotional impact of abortion on women and creates a $1.5 million grant program to fund the development of treatment programs for women who suffer from post-abortion depression.

Are there pro-aborts who believe post-partum depression exists but not post-abortion depression? Would you even battle research into post-abortion depression? If so, why?