Skip to comments.Remembering Terri Schiavo: A Five-Year Anniversary Marked By Cruel Bigotry
Posted on 03/31/2010 5:10:34 AM PDT by wagglebee
March 31st will mark the five-year anniversary of the needless death of my sister, Terri Schiavo.
It is difficult to believe this much time has passed since that horrible event which will be forever seared into my memory.
I wish I could say things have changed for the better since my sisters death or that people with cognitive disabilities are now better protected in response to the horror she had to endure.
Tragically, however, it seems the rights of the brain-injured, elderly and others are still being violated.
All one has to do is look at what happened just last week. On March 21st, Fox aired an episode of The Family Guy that featured a "sketch" called "Terri Schiavo: The Musical." I was astonished at the producers cruel bigotry directed towards my sister and all cognitively disabled people.
Sadly, although more offensive than what my family has seen in the past from the media since Terri died, the bald-faced ignorance expressed in that episode of The Family Guy was nothing new. In fact, all signs indicate that we have embarked on a very disturbing path.
There is no disputing that Terris life and death had an astonishing impact on our nation. Our family still receives letters, emails and phone calls almost every day from people who tell us how Terris story touched them in profound ways, particularly when they come to know the facts.
Indeed, it was because of my familys experience trying to protect Terri that we realized how all persons with similar cognitive disabilities are completely vulnerable to state laws that currently make it legal to deny them the most basic care food and water.
This horrifying realization was why we established Terris Foundation. In Terris name, my family now works to protect tens of thousands of people with similar brain-injuries from having their fundamental freedoms taken away by an aggressive anti-life movement hell-bent on portraying severely disabled and otherwise vulnerable human beings as nothing more than useless eaters.
If the amount of phone calls we receive is any indication, what happened to Terri has become common. I think most people have no idea how our individual rights to make decisions about basic care like food and water, antibiotics, etc., have been so dramatically eroded. This not only includes family members advocating for loved ones but also protecting oneself by medical directive.
We recently heard from a woman whose mother was being cared for at a hospice facility. The daughter was powerless to effectively advocate for her mother because she had no power of attorney.
Even though she was her mothers next-of-kin, and despite the fact her mother was begging her for food, the daughter was not allowed to feed her. It had been determined the mother was no longer able to swallow. But the daughter said her mother was eating safely just prior to being sent to hospice and questioned whether she still could. The mother was not given a feeding tube, and died just a short time later.
Perhaps the Death Panels Sarah Palin spoke of sounded like bombastic language. Yet when Palin added this term into our nations debate on health care, I believe she did not realize that many hospitals and facilities already have something frighteningly similar. Ethics committees are making many life and death decisions about patients, including whether to withhold simple provisions.
In a seemingly clandestine way, these ethics committees comprised of medical and legal professionals are empowering facilities to make life and death decisions independent of the family or a persons own wishes.
The chilling stories we receive make it clear few citizens have any idea how vulnerable they are when it comes to judgments left in the hands of these ethics committees and facilities. And with the federal government now controlling our health care, there is no reason not to believe that these types of committees wont become nationalized. Particularly when a health care system has been sabotaged by cost factors and quality of life judgments.
When our office receives phone calls from people fighting for their loved ones, I cannot help but look back and reflect on the courage of many individuals and groups who advocated on behalf of my sister.
As time has passed, however, many of those people, organizations and politicians even many of our own friends have fallen silent. Many who once ardently supported Terris life no longer actively educate or advocate for vulnerable patients.
With each troubling phone call from a frantic family, I am reminded there are countless other Terris in desperate need of our voice. Terris Foundation has been successful helping to save some, but sadly so many others have fallen victim.
I understand our nation faces many challenges today that may threaten our very existence. But how can we claim to be a just and honorable society, deserving of any blessing at all, if we richly reward hateful bigots while refusing to protect our weakest citizens?
Moreover, how did the tremendous courage and kindness we saw when we were fighting for Terris life have faded? How can any of us abandon this issue when all signs are that things are getting worse?
There are still many who support our efforts, who recognize the erosion of the value and dignity of the medically weak and who believe in protecting the life and liberty of all human beings.
The problem is their voices are often drowned out by the din of the pro-death lobby that claims death is the only dignified answer to a complicated problem.
Meanwhile the pro-death movement has not fallen silent. Rather, it has grown more vocal. The issue for them did not die with Terri. Indeed, their success in killing her seems to have only bolstered their determination to gain wider acceptance among the American people.
There will always be people with needs, there will always be others who work tirelessly to help them, and there will always be those who turn the other way; or worse sit behind their drawing tables, disseminating cruel bigotry and hatred toward the disabled and vulnerable.
Until we all recognize that our inherit worth doesnt change because of lifes circumstances, illness, disability or other events, we will continue to rob our most vulnerable of their right to fairness, justice and the ability to guide their own course in life.
Thread by mlizzy.
WARNING: Disturbing and graphic
CNN reported today on RapeLay, a Japanese video game that just went viral:
The game begins with a teenage girl on a subway platform. She notices you are looking at her and asks, "Can I help you with something?"
That is when you, the player, can choose your method of assault.
With the click of your mouse, you can grope her and lift her skirt. Then you can follow her aboard the train, assaulting her sister and her mother.
As you continue to play, "friends" join in and in a series of graphic, interactive scenes, you can corner the women, rape them again and again.
The game allows you to even impregnate a girl and urge her to have an abortion....
But the controversy that led to stopping sales of the game instead took it viral....
(Excerpt) Read more at jillstanek.com ...
Thread by topher.
BOSTON, March 31, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A study published in the March edition of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine suggests that a few physicians may have killed children who were very sick by giving them fatal morphine doses, after the parents had requested euthanasia.
Dr. Joanne Wolfe, a palliative pain specialist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Children's Hospital in Boston, interviewed 141 parents of children who died of cancer in order to explore the parents' motivation in considering and enquiring about hastening their child's death.
The study found that 19 of the 141 parents, or 13 percent, said they had considered asking about ending their child's life, and 13 parents reported having discussed intentionally ending their child's life. Parents of five children said they had explicitly asked a clinician for medications to end the child's life, and parents of three said it had been carried out with an overdose of morphine.
Dr. Wolfe wrote that the objective of the study was "to estimate the frequency of hastening death discussions, describe current parental endorsement of hastening death and intensive symptom management, and explore whether children's pain influences these views in a sample of parents whose child died of cancer."
"With two US states now allowing legalized physician-assisted suicide," continued Dr. Wolfe, "these discussions may become more frequent. Attitudes toward hastening death in noninfant children with life-threatening conditions have seldom been described."
Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, told LifeSiteNews (LSN) that he is seriously concerned by the finding of the study that medical professionals may have been willing to break the law and cause the death of a child in response to the request of parents.
"The fact is that if euthanasia of children were legal, such as it is in the Netherlands, there would be little to no protection for these children," Schadenberg said.
"Thankfully the actual number of children who were allegedly euthanized is small. The fact is that these children required excellent care, not death."
Dr. Wolfe observed that the child's experience of pain affects hastening death (HD) considerations by the parents, but many are not given adequate information about the legal options for pain relief, which can include sedating children into unconsciousness.
"Several studies indicate that both caregivers and physicians tend to confuse the unintended adverse effects of intensive symptom management with the intentional hastening of death. In our sample, the 3 families who reported intentionally hastening their child's death described doing so using morphine, which raises the question of whether they had misinterpreted the physicians' intentions. In fact, evidence indicates that opioids can be used safely at the end of life and that their effect on survival, if any, is negligible."
"Our results suggest that more than 1 of every 8 parents report considering HD during their child's illness, and they tended to do so if their child was in pain. In the context of an HD discussion, identifying sources of suffering and clearly explaining effective and legal options, including proportionately intensive symptom management, may ease parents' considerations of hastening their child's death," the report concluded.
The full text of the study, titled "Considerations About Hastening Death Among Parents of Children Who Die of Cancer" is available here.
Thread by me.
Some say there is no greater pain than a parent losing a child. So imagine watching for weeks as your disabled child is deliberately and slowly killed. Her excruciating death is by neglect failing to feed or give her water. Any parent who stood by and allowed that to happen would be criminally charged and excoriated by the media and every decent person.
But what if you were forbidden to help her? And what if a judge even ordered police to arrest anyone who put even a drop of water on her lips?
March 31st marks the anniversary of Terri Schindler Schiavos excruciating death by dehydration. Despite the vote of every U.S. senator, passionate pleas by congressmen, and President Bush flying halfway across the country to sign a law to help Terri, judges ordered that this innocent woman be killed.
Throughout it all, as the world watched, Terris family who deserved to be angry at this cruelty and injustice exhibited profound faith. Less than an hour after Terris heart stopped beating, in an extraordinary display of Christ-like humility, her brother Bobby faced the TV cameras and spoke to all who had clamored for her death.
Did he lash out at them, calling them to account for the suffering they had caused? No.
Did he, out of mercy, state that he had forgiven them? No.
In one of the most breath-taking and nearly inconceivable displays of Christian submission, he asked for forgiveness. He asked forgiveness if he or his family had caused offense to anyone.
Jesus taught us to pray forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors (Matthew 6:12).
Few of us have faced the pain and injustice that Terris family faced. Even so, we can be dearly tempted to nurse grudges as we confront unrighteousness.
The Schindlers, however, lived out the key trait for a pure heart. Forgiveness freed them from the stranglehold of bitterness and despair. It gave them strength to continue on to help others, which they have done through the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation.
Sadly, the cruelty continues. Just days before the fifth anniversary of Terris death, the FOX TV show The Family Guy aired a vulgar episode mocking Terri and others with cognitive disabilities. This reaching-down-to-the-depths-of-depravity was met with an outpouring of support for the Schindler family.
Terri and her family have touched many lives. We wont forget her. And her story is not complete without remembering the Schindlers powerful example of Christs love.
Thread by me.
The House of Commons is currently considering Bill C-384, a bill that would legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. This bill -- a private member's bill scheduled for further debate and a vote on first reading sometime in May -- should be rejected by every member of parliament.
Shortly before the passing of severely handicapped Terri Schiavo in Florida in 2005, whose death was hastened by a U.S. court order to remove her feeding tube, Patrick J. Buchanan wrote: "That there arose a national outcry at the execution of Schiavo -- so loud Congress and president Bush heard it and came to the rescue -- is a sign America is not morally dead ... yet. But a culture of death has taken deep root in America's soul."
The term "vegetative state," which was applied to the Schiavo case and her condition, indicates the condition of those patients whose "state" continues for over a year. Such people show no evident sign of being aware of themselves or their environment, and seem unable to interact with others or to react to specific stimuli. Although such patients remain prisoners of their condition for long periods of time and without needing technological support, it cannot be underestimated that there has been at least partial recovery in some of these cases.
Medical science, therefore, is unable to predict with exact certainty which patients in this condition will recover, and which will not.
Unfortunately, there are those who cast doubt on the persistence of the "human quality" of these patients, suggesting that the clinical term "vegetative" could or should be applied directly to the sick person as such, actually demeaning their value and personal dignity. The sick person in a vegetative state has the right to basic health care. The administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act.
The "quality of life," often imposed by economic, social and psychological pressures, cannot take precedence over general principles according to which even the simple doubt of being in the presence of a living person morally obliges one to respectfully abstain from any act that aims at anticipating the person's death.
Moreover, it is not possible to say that the withdrawal of a feeding tube will not be the source of considerable suffering for the sick person, even if we can see only the patient's reactions at the level of the autonomic nervous system or of gestures.
Our present culture tends to consider suffering the epitome of evil. In such a culture there is a great temptation to resolve the problem of suffering by eliminating it at the root, by hastening death so that it occurs at the moment considered most suitable. True compassion leads to sharing another's pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear.
The pleas of the gravely ill who sometimes request death should not be understood as implying a true desire for euthanasia; in fact, it is almost always a case of an anguished plea for help and love. Intentionally causing one's own death, or suicide, is a rejection of God's sovereignty and loving plan. It is a refusal of love for self, the denial of a natural instinct to live, a flight from the duties of justice and charity owed to one's neighbour and to society.
No one should be allowed to permit in any way the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
In the Netherlands, a policy originally encompassing only persistent requests for death from hopelessly suffering and dying patients has steadily expanded so that physicians have been allowed to kill patients who were physically healthy and handicapped children who never asked for death.
The Netherlands stands as a stark reminder of the slippery slope leading from supposedly limited killing to a broader culture of death.
There exists in contemporary culture a certain Promethean attitude which leads people to think that they can control life and death by taking the decisions about them into their own hands. What really happens in this case is that the individual is overcome and crushed by a death deprived of any prospect of meaning or hope. What any sick person needs, besides medical care, is love -- the human and supernatural warmth provided by those close to him such as family, nurses and doctors.
Terri Schiavo's public "execution" is a strong reminder that euthanasia, understood as an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, is senseless and inhumane and should be opposed in all its forms.
Thank you wagglebee for this post -- and the multiple others -- regarding Terri Schiavio and her legacy. As my Freepage states:
We should never forget that the US government, through an out of control judicial system and a "husband" who wanted her dead, murdered Terri Schindler Schiavo.
May Terri rest in the embrace of God's love, and may her family find peace through their strong and abiding Roman Catholic faith.
I sure do stand by your statement regarding Terri. 100%.
Thank you, Republic.
Thanks for the ping!
Thread by Coleus.
Last year we upgraded National Pro-Life T-Shirt Week with our Yo! Where's the Shirt!? Photo Contest. With over 2,000 photos submitted we considered it a success for our first year trying it. This year we are out to top that number and there is a new twist on how we are going to do it!
This year we have two shirts. A RED shirt that says "Abortion Kills a Person" and a BLUE shirt that says "It's ok to be Pro-Life". Whichever shirt you wear, there are going to be hundreds of tasks for you to complete! Good luck to everyone!
Every abortion kills a living human being - that is a fact. From the moment of creation, when that human being is but a single cell, all the way to the moment of birth, there is a child that is undergoing a period of remarkable growth and development. Abortion stops that miraculous growth cold and robs the world of all that child would have accomplished. That child is just gone.
NPLTW is organized by American Life League with the intent to increase awareness of abortion and the reality of how many innocent babies are murdered every day.
Primarily, we are concerned with getting people to think of the child as a person from the moment of fertilization. It is much harder to murder a person than it is to "remove a lump of tissues," and it is only when we finally get the nation thinking in those terms that we will be able to make abortion a crime, as it should be.
Just by wearing the T-shirt and being out there in public, you will help to accomplish that goal.
2010 NTPLW Contest
Got a question about National Pro-life T-shirt Week?
This year, we want as many people to get involved with National Pro-Life T-shirt Week as possible. How are we going to do that? We're going to get YOU out of the house and into the streets to help spread the message of Personhood to the public. American Life League is going to be holding our first-ever "Yo! Where's the shirt?" Photo Contest.
In a few weeks, we will be posting a list of "tasks" for you to accomplish while wearing your pro-life gear. For every task you complete you'll get points*. The more tasks you complete, the more points you get. Simple, right? How will we know you actually completed the task? Easy! You'll be posting a photo of yourself in action right here! Once you've registered and your photo has been approved you're in the contest. Contestants can be tracked on our leader board so you will always know who has brought their A-GAME. The contest is going to run from 12:01am on April 27th through 11:59pm on May 3, 2010. At the end of the week, the three pro-lifers with the most points* will win some awesome stuff: Things like pro-life shirts, hats, CDs and much more.
So what are you waiting for? Get REGISTERED NOW!
This is the sticker you need to wear if you are participating without an official 2010 NPLTW T-Shirt. You can order stickers for free or print and cut out this image. In Internet Explorer, just right-click on the image, and click Print Picture. In Firefox, right-click, click View Image, then press Ctrl+P
* "Points are awarded simply as a way of measuring how much activity you have done for this contest. Points have no monetary or other value."
Thread by me.
April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Many people, including those whose mission is to help women and girls who are victims of sexual assault and abuse, believe abortion is the best solution if a pregnancy occurs.
Yet our research shows that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault don't want abortion, and say abortion only compounds their trauma.
How can you deny an abortion to a twelve-year-old girl who is the victim of incest?
Typically, people on both sides of the abortion debate accept the premise that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault want abortions. From this fact, it naturally follows that the reason women want abortions in these cases is because it will help them to put the assault behind them, recover more quickly, and avoid the additional trauma of giving birth to a rapists child.
But in fact, the welfare of a mother and her child are never at odds, even in sexual assault cases. As the stories of many women confirm, both the mother and the child are helped by preserving life, not by perpetuating violence.
Sadly, however, the testimonies of women who have actually been pregnant through sexual assault are routinely left out of this public debate. Many people, including sexual assault victims who have never been pregnant, may be forming opinions based on their own prejudices and fears rather than the real life experiences of those people who have been in this difficult situation and reality.
For example, it is commonly assumed that rape victims who become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done prior to this book, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent did not have abortions. This figure is remarkably similar to the 73 percent birth rate found in our sample of 164 pregnant rape victims. This one finding alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims.1
Several reasons were given for not aborting. Many women who become pregnant through sexual assault do not believe in abortion, believing it would be a further act of violence perpetrated against their bodies and their children. Further, many believe that their childrens lives may have some intrinsic meaning or purpose which they do not yet understand. This child was brought into their lives by a horrible, repulsive act. But perhaps God, or fate, will use the child for some greater purpose. Good can come from evil.
The woman may also sense, at least at a subconscious level, that if she can get through the pregnancy she will have conquered the rape. By giving birth, she can reclaim some of her lost self-esteem. Giving birth, especially when conception was not desired, is a totally selfless act, a generous act, a display of courage, strength, and honor. It is proof that she is better than the rapist. While he was selfish, she can be generous. While he destroyed, she can nurture.
Adding to the Trauma
Many people assume that abortion will at least help a rape victim put the assault behind her and get on with her life. But evidence shows that abortion is not some magical surgery which turns back the clock to make a woman un-pregnant.
Instead, it is a real life event which is always very stressful and often traumatic. Once we accept that abortion is itself an event with deep ramifications for a womans life, then we must look carefully at the special circumstances of the pregnant sexual assault victim. Evidence indicates that abortion doesn't help and only causes further injury to an already bruised psyche?
But before we even get to this issue, we must ask: do most women who become pregnant as a result of sexual assault want to abort?
In our survey of women who became pregnant as a result of rape or incest, many women who underwent abortions indicated that they felt pressured or were strongly directed by family members or health care workers to have abortions. The abortion came about not because of the woman's desire to abort but as a response to the suggestions or demands of others. In many cases, resources such as health workers, counselors and others who are normally there to help women after sexual assault pushed for abortion.
Family pressure, withholding of support and resources that the woman needed to continue the pregnancy, manipulative an inadequate counseling and other problems all played a role into pushing women into abortions, even though abortion was often not what the woman really wanted.
Further, in almost every case involving incest, it was the girl's parents or the perpetrator who made the decision and arrangements for the abortion, not the girl herself. None of these women reported having any input into the decision. Each was simply expected to comply with the choice of others. In several cases, the abortion was carried out over the objections of the girl, who clearly told others that wanted to continue the pregnancy. In a few cases, victim was not even clearly aware that she was pregnant or that the abortion was being carried out.
Second, although many people believe that abortion will help a woman resolve the trauma of rape more quickly, or at least keep her from being reminded of the rape throughout her pregnancy, many of the women in our survey who had abortions reported that abortion only added to and accentuated the traumatic feelings associated with sexual assault.
This is easy to understand when one considers that many women have described their abortions as being similar to a rape (and even used the term "medical rape), it is easy to see that abortion is likely to add a second trauma to the earlier trauma of sexual assault. Abortion involves an often painful intrusion into a womans sexual organs by a masked stranger who is invading her body. Once she is on the operating table, she loses control over her body. Even if she protests and asks the abortionist to stop, chances are she will be either ignored or told that it's too late to stop the abortion.
For many women this experiential association between abortion and sexual assault is very strong. It is especially strong for women who have a prior history of sexual assault, whether or not the aborted child was conceived during an act of assault. This is just one reason why women with a history of sexual assault are likely to experience greater distress during and after an abortion than are other women.
Research also shows that women who abort and women who are raped often describe similar feelings of depression, guilt, lowered self-esteem, violation and resentment of men. Rather than easing the psychological burdens experienced by those who have been raped, abortion added to them. Jackie wrote:
I soon discovered that the aftermath of my abortion continued a long time after the memory of my rape had faded. I felt empty and horrible. Nobody told me about the pain I would feel deep within causing nightmares and deep depressions. They had all told me that after the abortion I could continue my life as if nothing had happened.2
Those encouraging, pushing or insisting on abortion often do so because they are uncomfortable dealing with sexual assault victims, or perhaps because they harbor some prejudice against victims whom they feel let it happen. Wiping out the pregnancy is a way of hiding the problem. It is a quick and easy way to avoid dealing with the womans true emotional, social and financial needs. As Kathleen wrote:
I, having lived through rape, and also having raised a child conceived in rape, feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest. I feel that we're being used by pro-abortionists to further the abortion issue, even though we've not been asked to tell our side of the story.
Trapping the Incest Victim
The case against abortion for incest pregnancies is even stronger. Studies show that incest victims rarely ever voluntarily agree to abortion. Instead of viewing the pregnancy as unwanted, the incest victim is more likely to see the pregnancy as a way out of the incestuous relationship because the birth of her child will expose the sexual activity. She is also likely to see in her pregnancy the hope of bearing a child with whom she can establish a truly loving relationship, one far different than the exploitive relationship in which she has been trapped.
But while the girl may see her pregnancy as a possible way of release from her situation, it poses a threat to her abuser. It is also poses a threat to the pathological secrecy which may envelop other members of the family who are afraid to acknowledge the abuse. Because of this dual threat, the victim may be coerced or forced into an unwanted abortion by both the abuser and other family members.
For example, Edith, a 12-year-old victim of incest impregnated by her stepfather, writes twenty-five years after the abortion of her child:
Throughout the years I have been depressed, suicidal, furious, outraged, lonely, and have felt a sense of loss . . . The abortion which was to be in my best interest just has not been. As far as I can tell, it only saved their reputations, solved their problems, and allowed their lives to go merrily on. . . . My daughter, how I miss her so. I miss her regardless of the reason for her conception."
Abortion businesses who routinely ignore this evidence and neglect to interview minors presented for abortion for signs of coercion or incest are actually contributing to the victimization of young girls. Not only are they robbing the victim of her child, they are concealing a crime, abetting a perpetrator, and handing the victim back to her abuser so that the exploitation can continue.
For example, the parents of three teenaged Baltimore girls pleaded guilty to three counts of first-degree rape and child sexual abuse. The father had repeatedly raped the three girls over a period of at least nine years, and the rapes were covered up by at least ten abortions. At least five of the abortions were performed by the same abortionist at the same clinic.3
Sadly, there is strong evidence that failing to ask questions about the pregnancy and to report cases of sexual abuse are widespread at abortion clinics. Undercover investigations by pro-life groups have found numerous cases in which clinics agreed to cover up cases of statutory rape or ongoing abuse of minor girls by older men and simply perform an abortion instead.
In 2002 a judge found a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Arizona negligent for failing to report a case in which a 13-year-old girl was impregnated and taken for an abortion by her 23-year-old foster brother. The abortion business did not notify authorities until the girl returned six months later for a second abortion. A lawsuit alleged that the girl was subjected to repeated abuse and a second abortion because Planned Parenthood failed to notify authorities when she had her first abortion. The girl's foster brother was later imprisoned for abusing her.4
Finally, we must recognize that children conceived through sexual assault also deserve to have their voices heard. Rebecca Wasser-Kiessling, who was conceived in a rape, is rightfully proud of her mothers courage and generosity and wisely reminds us of a fundamental truth that transcends biological paternity: I believe that God rewarded my birth mother for the suffering she endured, and that I am a gift to her. The serial rapist is not my creator; God is.
Similarly, Julie Makimaa, who works diligently against the perception that abortion is acceptable or even necessary in cases of sexual assault, proclaims, It doesn't matter how I began. What matters is who I will become.
Thats a slogan we can all live with.
1. Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. Mall & Watts, (Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 55-69.
2. David C. Reardon, Aborted Women, Silent No More (Chicago, IL: Loyola University Press, 1987), 206.
3. Jean Marbella, "Satisfactory explanations of sex crime proved elusive," Baltimore Sun, Oct. 31, 1990; M. Dion Thompson, "GBMC, doctor suspected nothing amiss," Baltimore Sun, Oct. 31. 1990; "Family Horror Comes to Light in Story of Girls Raped by Father," Baltimore Sun, November 4, 1990; Raymond L. Sanchez, "Mother Sentenced in Rape Case," Baltimore Sun, Dec. 6, 1990.
4. "Planned Parenthood Found Negligent in Reporting Molested Teen's Abortion," Pro-Life Infonet, attributed to Associated Press; Dec. 26, 2002.
Thread by mlizzy.
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Now that President Barack Obama has signed the pro-abortion health care bill into law, a supporter of his has admitted the rationing components in it. During an appearance on ABC's "This Week" Paul Krugman admits some of the concerns that pro-life groups pointed out during the debate.
Krugman claims accurately that the cost/benefit board established over private medicine by the new health care program will be able to impose more or less binding judgments refusing care.
He said these judgments will save a lot of money in the context of treating the elderly and people with disabilities and terminal illnesses.
Krugman also said panel will prevent treatment that isn't medically useful.
Wesley J. Smith, an author and attorney who is a bioethics watchdog, noticed the interview.
"No, the money won't be taken out of the hide of patients who want physiologically useless treatment, it will come at the lethal cost to patients whose treatment will be refused because it could work, based on the invidious judgment that the patients life is not worth the money to support," he said in response.
"In short, Krugman has admitted that contrary to the many mendacious denials by Obamacare supporters, the new regime will impose rationing," as happens in the UK, Smith added.
"This is akin to imposing a duty to die because when we reach a certain point in life, we will not be able to obtain treatment we want that could keep us going. Indeed, for me, this centralized federal control over what will and will not be provided in medicineand to whomis the biggest reason (among so many) why Obamacare is wrong," Smith commented.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
Thread by me.
As I have repeatedly reported here and elsewhere, some bioethicists and others in the transplant community seek permission to harvest patients organs before they are dead. The latest example is in the Winter 2010 edition of Lahey Clinical Journal of Medical Ethics, in which Brown University transplant surgeon, Dr. Paul Morrissey, argues that to obtain more usable kidneys, organs should be taken from neurologically devastated patients without first withdrawing life support and waiting for death by cardiac arrest. From the article Kidney Donation From Brain-Injured Patients Before a Declaration of Death:
My proposed model uncouples organ donation from the donors death. The process begins as before with they identification of an individual with good renal function and with severe, irreversible brain injury with no hope for purposeful or prolonged existence. The family decides to withdraw care with the expectation of the patients imminent death. A DNR order is written. With the consent of the donor family, the patient is transported to the operating room for kidney recovery. Both kidneys are recovered in a controlled surgical procedure with vascular control, equivalent to bilateral nephrectomy in a neurologically intact patient. General anesthesia and standard analgesic care are administered, as would be given to a trauma victim with severe head injury undergoing surgery. The patient returns to the intensive care unit and end-of-life care is instituted, in a more relaxed time period without the requisite rush to the operating room following asystole. This protocol enables the family to grieve and spend time with the decedent after death.
Currently, a donor must first be declared dead, either by neurological criteria (brain death)not the kind discussed hereor after removal of life support and cardiac arrest. This proposal would reverse the order, first take the kidneys, and then remove the life support, under the pretense of obeying the dead donor rule as the actual death could come after the kidneys were removed. But this sophistry: The patient couldnt possibly live without kidneys, and many would die during the surgery.
Morrissey says these patients will die if life support is removed anyway. Indeed, he claims:
With what certainty do we know that cardiopulmonary death will ensue following the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy? To date, no patient entered into consideration for DCD has been reported to have prolonged cardiac function or entered a persistent vegetative state. Cases of prolonged cardiac function after extubation beyond even 24 hours are exceedingly rare.
So in essence, whats the harm? Theres plenty: Consent or no consent, there is harm in treating a patient like an objectboth to the specific individual and society. Besides, plenty of patients considered for the heart death protocol didnt become donors precisely because they didnt die within an hour as expected. Moreover, according to a study published last year in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine, as reported here:
There is a misconception that withdrawal of ventilatory and hemodynamic support will result in immediate or imminent death in the ICU. A survey of withdrawal of mechanical ventilation in the critically ill adults at 15 ICUs found that 21 of 166 patients (13%) survived to ICU discharge after withdrawal of life support.
Dr. Morrissey might respond by differentiating his proposal from the patients in this study, since he would select only the most imminently dying from devastating head injuries. Perhaps, but as this blog has abundantly demonstrated, standards slip. Besides, it is certainly conceivable that at least some patients whose kidneys were removed could possibly have otherwise survived withdrawal of mechanical ventilation.
Dr. Morrisseys proposal would indeed, be killing for organs, even if the heart stopped after removing the organs. Moreover, once we walked through that door, the practice would only expand as a matter of simple logic. To maintain the peoples trust in transplant medicine and to prevent human beings from being used as mere harvestable resource, such proposals should be rejected at every turn.
Thread by jaydubya2.
'I don't know that this will be a dramatic change,' president says
SOUTH BEND -- The University of Notre Dame on Thursday issued an institutional statement affirming "its commitment to the defense of human life in all its stages."
The university also has adopted new principles for the institution's charitable activity.
"I don't know that this will be a dramatic change," the Rev. John I. Jenkins, Notre Dame's president, said in a telephone interview. "We wanted principles that we could apply consistently."
The development and adoption of the statement and principles were among recommendations made to Jenkins by the campus Task Force on Supporting the Choice for Life.
Jenkins and the university faced widespread criticism last spring for inviting President Barack Obama, who favors abortion rights, to campus to give the commencement address and receive an honorary degree. Jenkins created the task force in September.The new statement on the defense of life reads: "Consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church on such issues as abortion, research involving human embryos, euthanasia, the death penalty, and other related life issues, the University of Notre Dame recognizes and upholds the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death."
(Excerpt) Read more at southbendtribune.com ...
Pinellas-Pasco circuit court judge George Greer: judicial murderer.
What is the blind judge up to these days?
Has he had more decisions of his reversed?
Hey, how about when you invite someone to YOUR campus, you do not allow any hiding of icons? How about allowing the showing on the Holy Name of Christ, a cross and not allowing anyone to cover them up as if you were ashamed.
Hey, how about BEING a witness, instead of asking others to be?
Thanks for the ping!
Have the charges against the protesters been dropped?