Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Terri Schiavo Revisited: Brother Bobby Schindler Speaks
CUA Tower ^ | 11/12/10 | Joanna Gardner

Posted on 11/14/2010 10:59:10 AM PST by wagglebee

There was not a dry eye in McGivney Hall's Keane auditorium Wednesday as more than 150 students watched a short video of photos and footage from the life of Terri Schiavo-a Florida woman whose tragic medical condition riveted the nation and Congress five years ago.

The video presentation followed a talk given by Bobby Schindler, the late Terri Schiavo's brother and advocate from the Terri Schiavo Life and Hope Network, sponsored by the CUA student organization Students for Life.

Schindler's talk addressed the misconceptions surrounding Schiavo's death, its treatment by the media, and its ongoing impact in today's culture, in a presentation both emotionally moving, and factually startling.

For many, Schiavo's controversial 2005 death after suffering a traumatic brain injury in 1990 that left her severely disabled, was a vague memory. Current CUA students were between grades 7 and 10 when Schiavo died and for many the details of the case were unclear.

According to Schindler, this confusion exists for most of America because of the misleading coverage the case received in the mainstream media, the many rumors that circulated about its details, and a common atmosphere of both ridicule and acceptance surrounding the event that has developed in pop and media culture.

But Schindler's primary message was a call for awareness in the present day. "The reason why we're still talking about this case, why it's so important, is because this issue did not end with Terri," he said.

Schindler began his presentation by declaring false much of what is now assumed about the case. "She was not in a coma, she was not in a persistent vegetative state, she was certainly not brain-dead. There were no machines, no respirators, dialysis machines, nothing at all hooked up to her keeping her alive, other than food and water."

On February 5th, 1990, Schiavo collapsed in her apartment for reasons still unknown. The lack of oxygen to her brain for several hours left her with what is termed a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). Her injury resulted in difficulty swallowing and she was put on a feeding tube.

Schindler explained that in the years following her injury, Schiavo made progress. She was able to go out in a wheelchair and was beginning to say certain words, he said. However, in 1993 her husband and legal guardian Michael Schiavo stopped all rehabilitation and Terri was confined to a nursing home.

"If you do that to anybody with this type of brain injury, they are going to naturally deteriorate, and Terri did," Schindler said. Over the course of the next twelve years, Michael Schiavo and Terri's family became engaged in a legal battle over Terri's life; Michael argued that her wish would be to die, and her family sought the right to care for her at home.

In 2005 after a series of court cases, Congress stepped in, passing a bill giving cases like Terri's the right to a federal review. A federal judge ruled that the original court decision on Terri's case would stand and that her feeding tube would be removed.

"This case is often talked about as an end-of life issue; it's not. She wasn't dying. She didn't have a terminal disease. Doctors said that Terri quite possibly could have lived a normal life span," Schindler argued. Many doctors have argued, however, that Terri's condition was irreversible.

Feeding tubes by law are considered extraordinary means of keeping a person alive. "The health care profession now recognizes food and water as artificial life support," Schindler said. "Food and water have been defined as medical treatment." While debate continues within the medical community, Schindler firmly expressed his belief that food and water should not be denied to patients in Terri's position.

After two weeks without food and water, Schiavo died of dehydration on March 31, 2005 at the age of 41. Schindler called it a "brutal death."

Schindler and his family formed the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation (now the Terri Schiavo Life and Hope Network) as a response to this experience. He described the organization's mission as "advocating for people who are not dying, who are only being sustained by food and water."

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, each year in the United States about 1.7 million people sustain a Traumatic Brain Injury. The CDC reports, "TBI is a contributing factor to a third (30.5%) of all injury-related deaths in the United States." (www.cdc.gov) It is also a signature injury of troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Schindler said these figures are what give the issue such relevance today. "I think this is an issue that's going to touch everyone, either directly or through a family member," he said.

But he also sees his sister's case as part of a larger cultural movement. "We are now deciding whether someone should live or die based on what they can and cannot do," he said. "This is not only a life issue," he said, "but a disability rights issue."

In April, a controversial episode of the TV show Family Guy aired mocking the Terri Schiavo case. Schindler said that such instances in pop culture reveal a "prejudice" against the disabled and "a dangerous apathy in our society."

The distortion of the case in the mainstream-media is nothing recent, according to Schindler. He quoted journalist Nat Hentoff, who wrote in 2003, "The reporting on the fierce battle for the life of 39-year-old Terri Schiavo has been the worst case of this kind of journalistic malpractice I've seen."

Students who attended the event commented on this misrepresentation. Sophomore Meghan Dietzler said, "I didn't even realize that she was not on life support or brain dead. I believed what the media told me, and I thought my family was pretty informed about it."

"I didn't realize how much of an issue this was, or that it affected so many people in our country and in our culture," said sophomore Mary Linn.

Most students were also touched on an emotional level. Freshman Cassian Utrie explained, "This stuff moves you because it's real."

The president of Students for Life, senior Deirdre Lawler said, "I think it was very powerful to hear him talk about it from a personal perspective….These issues can become abstract very easily."

Asked about the club's reasons for bringing Schindler to campus, Lawler said, "We were really excited to have Bobby to represent another facet of our mission which is to promote a culture of life, and his story is very important to address another way in which that culture of life is threatened."

Vice president of SFL, senior Ryan Cooley said, "The intentionality here was to promote and highlight an issue that often goes unspoken of and misrepresented."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: euthanasia; moralabsolutes; prolife; terridailies; terrischiavo; whiterose
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last
Students who attended the event commented on this misrepresentation. Sophomore Meghan Dietzler said, "I didn't even realize that she was not on life support or brain dead. I believed what the media told me, and I thought my family was pretty informed about it."

The left deliberately misrepresented Terri's condition so that they could kill her and gain public support for future death panels to kill the elderly and disabled.

1 posted on 11/14/2010 10:59:15 AM PST by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cgk; Coleus; cpforlife.org; narses; Salvation; 8mmMauser
Pro-Life Ping
2 posted on 11/14/2010 11:00:21 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 185JHP; 230FMJ; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; Amos the Prophet; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


3 posted on 11/14/2010 11:01:20 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
New Terri Dailies Theme...
 
Bobby Schindler continues to make sure the truth is told!

 


4 posted on 11/14/2010 11:05:28 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ..
President Bush didn't do nearly enough for the pro-life movement, but maybe his book will.

Thread by topher.

Bush: Pro-Life Views Affected after Seeing Remains of Miscarried Sibling

November 8, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Throughout his presidency George W. Bush was unapologetically pro-life, but a strange anecdote found in his about-to-be-released autobiography, Decision Points, has provided new insight into the genesis of his views on the issue.

In a recent interview with NBC's Matt Lauer about the forthcoming book, Bush explained that when he was a teenager his mother, Barbara Bush, suffered a difficult miscarriage.

Barbara obtained the miscarried fetus, and put it in a jar in order to bring it in to the hospital. However, first she showed her teenage son his deceased sibling.

"I never expected to see the remains of the foetus, which she had saved in a jar to bring to the hospital." He added: "There was a human life, a little brother or sister."

"There's no question that affected me, a philosophy that we should respect life."

According to the New York Post, however, Bush told Lauer that "the purpose of the story wasn't to try show the evolution of a pro-life point of view." 

"It was really to show how my mom and I developed a relationship."

Ironically, Barbara herself appears not to have been quite as affected by the incident as her son: her views on abortion have been less clear.

In 1992, during her husband's presidential run, she famously argued that abortion should be left out of the Republican Party's platform: "The personal things should be left out of, in my opinion, platforms and conventions."

Meanwhile, Mrs. Bush was coy about where her personal views fell on the issue. "I'm not being outspoken or pro or con abortion," she said. "I'm saying abortion should not be in there, either pro or con."


5 posted on 11/14/2010 11:10:42 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
Big Murder continues the American Holocaust at taxpayer expense.

Threads by Mr. Mojo and me.

Planned Parenthood Got $349.6 Million in Tax Dollars, Performed 324,008 Abortions....

Planned Parenthood received $349.6 million in tax dollars in its fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2008 and paid its president, Cecile Richards, $385,163, plus another $11,876 in benefits and deferred compensation.

Also, according to a “fact sheet [2]” published by the organization, Planned Parenthood Affiliate Health Centers performed 324,008 abortions in 2008.

Planned Parenthood’s fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2008 is the latest year for which the organization has publicly released an annual report [3] and published the annual sum of grants and contracts it received from the government.

The $385,163 in pay Planned Parenthood President Richards received in the organization’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2008 was recorded in the organization’s publicly available Internal Revenue Service Form 990 filed for that year.

Richards also received $346,285 in total compensation from Planned Parenthood and $38,476 in total compensation from related groups in the organization’s fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2009, according to the organization’s Form 990 for that year.

Planned Parenthood did not respond to repeated inquiries from CNSNews.com about Cecile Richards’ compensation.

____________________________________________________

Planned Parenthood Wants to Abort Us into Prosperity

November 8, 2010 (pop.org) - It will come as no surprise to learn that Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards believes that government-funded health care should pay for all birth control, including abortions. After all, since much of this funding would flow to Planned Parenthood, America's number one abortion provider would profit mightily from such a policy.

Of course Richards is smart enough not to say that PP wants to devour our money as well as our children. Instead, she trots out the lame argument that eliminating people will somehow save us all money.

Appearing on the “Bill Press Show,” the Planned Parenthood honcho claimed that “birth control is one of those issues that actually saves the government money.” She went on to say that “we actually feel that covering birth control is not only the right thing to do for women, it's good for women, it's good for their health care, but it's frankly good public policy. An investment in covering birth control actually in the long run is a huge cost savings because women don't have children that they weren't planning on having and all the sort of attendant cost for unplanned pregnancy.”

We at PRI regard Richards's views not only as self-serving, but also as short-sighted. Children do indeed cost money to raise — as every parent knows — but they grow up into productive citizens who produce wealth, pay taxes and, on the whole, leave America a better place than they found it.

If you crunch the numbers, as we have, you will find that the average American baby born today will contribute several million dollars to the economy over his or her productive lifetime. Oppose this to the hundred-odd thousand dollars or so that it will cost to raise the child to adulthood, and you see just how valuable an asset these tiny human beings really are.

Planned Parenthood is an offensive organization because it not only advocates the wholesale destruction of defenseless human beings, but also actually carries out hundreds of thousands of such lethal acts each year in its hundreds of abortuaries. Now it wants us to subsidize, through Obamacare, these immoral acts, telling us that they are saving us money by doing so.

No one denies that it costs money to raise children, of course, but those who do so are making a fundamental investment in the future. Children grow into adults, who not only contribute to the GDP by entering the workforce, but also contribute, using their own special gifts, to creating families, communities, and societies. To view babies solely as economic liabilities, as Richards does, is not only dehumanizing; it makes no economic sense whatsoever.

Now Cecile Richards would probably respond that she doesn't want to eliminate all children, only those that are “unplanned.” But how does one define “unplanned?” If your parents were not planning on conceiving a child in a particular cycle, does that make you unplanned? Does Richards not know that an element of chance enters into any conception, meaning that it takes up to twelve months for a couple of average fertility to conceive a child? Or is she focused on aborting all single mothers, as they do in China? I don't know about Richards, but I was unplanned and, therefore, by her simplistic calculations, should have been eliminated as an unnecessary expenditure.

Planned Parenthood's position is all the more nonsensical because the very government health care that Richards promotes so fervently can only be paid for by taxpayer funds. And every single taxpayer starts life in a mother's womb.

Last spring, Nancy Pelosi tried to add hundreds of million of dollars in birth control funding to the so-called “stimulus package” using these same arguments. We opposed this move in interviews with FOX and other media. At the end of the day, her amendment proved too much even for many Democrats to stomach, and it was rejected.

People are not just liabilities, they are assets. In fact, they are the ultimate assets. And they all start out as babies.


6 posted on 11/14/2010 11:17:16 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
Infanticide as birth control.

Thread by me.

British Woman Has Four Abortions in Three Years, Including Late-Term

A 22-year-old British woman is feature in the Sun newspaper in England about her story of having four abortions in the span of the last three years, including one late-term abortion done at 22 weeks into pregnancy.

The interview takes place at an abortion center where Stacy Cutler watches the image of her viable late-term unborn child on an ultrasound monitor.

“Cutler listens to her 22-week-old unborn child’s heartbeat – and her eyes fill with tears,” the Sun reports. “The grainy scan shows the fully developed foetus moving around inside her. But Stacy’s tears are not of joy at seeing her baby for the first time. She has made the heartbreaking decision to have an abortion at this late stage.”

Repeat abortions have long been a problem in England, where thousands of women have had three or more.

Cutler says she had the abortions because she was not emotionally secure enough to have the baby and, despite the multitude of resources, not financially able to do so.

“It was certainly not an easy decision to abort four of my unborn children,” she told the newspaper. “But I realised that it would be unfair to bring those children in to the world when I barely had the money to look after my son.”

Cutler resorted to using abortion as a form of birth control even though she was on the pill each of the four times in which she became pregnant.

She is of the mindset many women who justify their abortions and abortion advocacy groups have about abortion being better than giving birth to a baby in less-than-stellar conditions.

“Women who choose to have an abortion are criticised and looked down on,” she todl the Sun. “But it is far better than bringing a child into the world that you are unable to look after or afford. Obviously I’m not proud of what I have done and I know people will judge me. Abortion should be the decision of the woman who is having the baby – no one else.”

Josephine Quintavalle of the Prolife Alliance commented on Cutler’s story in her own comments to The Sun.

“Stacy’s story is horrifying and it is the reality of the abortion-on-demand state we are living in,” she explained. “As part of the ProLife Alliance, I am anti-abortion and her choice is just incomprehensible to me.”

The pro-life advocate said Cutler should have consdiered adoption and the abortion practitioner used an excuse for the abortion that essentially allowed it to be used as birth control.

“For a woman to choose to terminate a healthy baby that was nearly 22 weeks simply because she realised she didn’t want it is beyond belief. Babies can and have been known to live from 23 weeks. I cannot understand why she could not go full term and give the child up for adoption,” she added.

“The doctor clearly felt that it was in the interest of her mental health but, if that is the case, this should certainly be looked at more thoroughly,” she said.


7 posted on 11/14/2010 11:24:19 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I see that abortion has been brought into the room now and i understand the culture of death and nonperson status here as a whole.

but inregard to Terri,how was it that her own family was denied the right to bring home their own chld and care for her at home ?
they were willing to.
who made that decision ?
and how did they get away with this ?—the denial-


8 posted on 11/14/2010 11:34:15 AM PST by catroina54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: catroina54; BykrBayb; floriduh voter; Lesforlife; Sun; EternalVigilance
but inregard to Terri,how was it that her own family was denied the right to bring home their own chld and care for her at home ?
they were willing to.
who made that decision ?
and how did they get away with this ?—the denial-

It's very simple, Terri was murdered to fulfill an agenda (and probably to cover-up crimes). The media was taking round-the-clock polls to determine which "talking points" the public found most believable. For the first time in history an innocent person was murdered live on TV for the whole world to see and they stretched it out as long as possible.

9 posted on 11/14/2010 11:40:17 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Thanks for the ping!


10 posted on 11/14/2010 12:22:38 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Terri was still married to Michael Schiavo, so he was the one making all the decisions concerning her “care”. Some years after the incident that started her situation (no one seems to be sure what caused her problem in the first place, as far as I understand it), Michael moved in with a woman, and they had several children together, and yet he refused to divorce Terri and allow her family to care for her. He never offered a convincing reason for not divorcing Terri, either. A huge legal battle ensued but poor Terri was killed. there’s no other way to put it. She was killed. God Bless her, and the entire Schindler family. They are true American heroes.


11 posted on 11/14/2010 12:26:24 PM PST by Radagast the Fool ("Mexico-Beirut with tacos!"--Dr. Zoidberg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
As the evangelist Billy Graham is supposed to have said:

"If GOD does not judge the United States of America,
then HE owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology."

12 posted on 11/14/2010 12:28:27 PM PST by ExcursionGuy84
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ExcursionGuy84
Very true!
13 posted on 11/14/2010 12:32:19 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Radagast the Fool; BykrBayb; floriduh voter; Lesforlife; Sun; EternalVigilance
There is an incredible amount of evidence that suggests the Mikey Schiavo was RESPONSIBLE for Terri's condition (he was angry that she spent too much money on a perm earlier in the day) and ZERO evidence that it was due to an eating disorder (though the media continued to suggest this throughout).

Mikey certainly did pretend to care for Terri before she got a huge financial settlement.

Ultimately, he abandoned Terri, became an adulterer and murdered her.

14 posted on 11/14/2010 12:37:59 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

Ping


15 posted on 11/14/2010 12:51:11 PM PST by Salamander (I may be lonely but I'm never alone...and the nights may pass me by....but I never cry.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All; wagglebee

Let’s all save that story in post No. 14, so we can use it to inform others through the years.


16 posted on 11/14/2010 12:55:28 PM PST by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Radagast the Fool

“Michael moved in with a woman, and they had several children together, and yet he refused to divorce Terri and allow her family to care for her.”

I think Michael refused divorce as revenge for Terri’s dad speaking up for Terri so much, plus Michael wanted to save his own butt by hiding the truth.


17 posted on 11/14/2010 1:02:15 PM PST by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Thank you, wagglebee, for the information. I did not know there had been a Terri Schiavo Day in 1991.
I do remember that in court documents of the malpractice suit filed by Schiavo, he stated under oath that Terri was a Catholic and would have wanted treatment no matter how serious her situation might be, and yet after he got major $s in the suit, he wanted to stop her care and, again under oath during the long legal battle with her family for custody, stated he “just happened to remember” that she once told him she would never want to be “kept alive” if something terrible were to happen to her.

The whole thing was beyond horrible. At least now she’s at peace, and her dear Father is with her.


18 posted on 11/14/2010 1:02:45 PM PST by Radagast the Fool ("Mexico-Beirut with tacos!"--Dr. Zoidberg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sun; Radagast the Fool
I think Michael refused divorce as revenge for Terri’s dad speaking up for Terri so much, plus Michael wanted to save his own butt by hiding the truth.

Keep in mind that Mikey used TERRI'S MONEY, not his to kill her. He would later turn down millions of dollars to let her live.

My belief is that he was terrified to let her get better. His quest to murder her began after they got the money AND after she started to improve.

Videos of Terri Interacting

19 posted on 11/14/2010 1:11:02 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Judges: The New Assassins.

Obamacare: The New Final Solution.


20 posted on 11/14/2010 1:11:20 PM PST by DPMD (~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lula

Terri ping


21 posted on 11/14/2010 3:28:39 PM PST by plsjr (<>< ... http://NewSpring.cc/webservice - check it out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

For the record, CUATower appears to be a production
of Catholic University of America.


22 posted on 11/14/2010 7:18:09 PM PST by cycjec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: catroina54

“how did they get away with this”
questions we are still asking.


23 posted on 11/14/2010 7:20:24 PM PST by cycjec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
Paul Krugman admits to death panels.

Thread by me.

New York Times Columnist Says Death Panels Needed to Fix Economy

 
When former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin warned about the potential for “death panels” under ObamaCare that would make life and death medical decisions for patients, she was scoffed at and dismissed as off base.

Now, an economist who is a columnist for the New York Times says death panels may be needed as a solution to fix the troubled economy.

Paul Krugman appeared on ABC’s “This Week with Christiane Amanpour” during a roundtable discussion about the economy and the recent conclusions from the U.S. Debt Reduction Commission.

Krugman said the death panels won’t come into play now but would down the road.

“Some years down the pike, we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes. It’s going to be that we’re actually going to take Medicare under control, and we’re going to have to get some additional revenue, probably from a VAT. But it’s not going to happen now,” he said.

Krugman said if the debt commission “were going to do reality therapy, they should have said, ‘OK, look, Medicare is going to have to decide what it’s going to pay for. And at least for starters, it’s going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all.’”

“In other words, it should have endorsed the panel that was part of the healthcare reform,” he added.

Krugman immediately came under fire for the comments on the Internet and he quickly posted a clarification on his blog.

“I said something deliberately provocative on ‘This Week,’ so I think I’d better clarify what I meant, which I did on the show, but it can’t hurt to say it again,” he wrote. “So, what I said is that the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on “death panels and sales taxes.”

“What I meant is that … health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care,” he added.

Krugman admitted death panels are “politically impossible” but said they may happen someday.

Some pro-life advocates are saying the ObamaCare bill, once implemented could put “death panels” in place now by using competitive pricing and cost analysis in a system similar to the British government-run health care system that make medical treatment decisions that have cost patients their lives.

Palin first wrote about death panels on Facebook in August 2009 and she elaborated on her first post a week later.

The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual … or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility… or a hospice program.” [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]

Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones…. If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?”

Noel Sheppard of the conservative media watchdog Newsbusters responded to Krugman’s comments.

“This may have been “deliberately provocative,” but so were Palin’s comments which he now seems to be somewhat agreeing with albeit without having the nerve to admit it,” he says.

“To cut Medicare costs in the future – an essential part of budget balancing according to Krugman – the government is going to have to decide which procedures it will cover and which it won’t. These decisions will admittedly involve a cost-benefit analysis. This means the individual’s rights are being subordinated to the government’s financial interest,” Sheppard said.

“As the government has deep budgetary problems, the cost-benefit analysis will naturally morph towards financial restraint thereby further limiting a patient’s options and therefore his or her rights,” he added.

“As the government has deep budgetary problems, the cost-benefit analysis will naturally morph towards financial restraint thereby further limiting a patient’s options and therefore his or her rights,” he concluded. “If only such dangers were better explained to the public before Congress voted on this bill in March.

Ethel Fenig also commented at the American Thinker blog about the Krugman remarks.

“They laughed when Sarah Palin said Obamacare would require death panels to control medical costs. But for some reason no one laughs when New York times columnist Paul Krugman says the same thing. Maybe because he won–inexplicably–the Nobel Prize for Economics,” she writes.


24 posted on 11/21/2010 12:14:24 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 0beron; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ..
Father Pavone is right, but it is important that the Tea Party NOT marginalize the pro-life movement.

Thread by 0beron.

'Pro-Life' - Activist Frank Pavone: Tea-Party is the 'Home' of Defending Life

Famous Pro-Life Priest in a press conference in Vienna: the principle goal of the movement remains in any case, is to make abortion legally unallowable.

Vienna (kath.net/KAP) An insight in the engagement of the US-American "Pro-Life" - movement was given by activist and President of "Priests for Life" - initiative, Frank Pavone this Thursday in Vienna. The principle goal of the movement remains in any case, to make abortion legally unallowable, said Pavone during an encounter with a journalist. The movement also has in any case to raise consciousness in the population: "We want to make abortion unthinkable." He could himself "not imagine a situation, in which abortion [were] a solution to a problem", says the priest. That does not indicate that there will be a denial of the obligation to care for every woman, who has undergone an abortion and been traumatized.

(Excerpt) Read more at eponymousflower.blogspot.com ...


25 posted on 11/21/2010 12:20:42 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
They can call it anything they want, but it's rationing.

Thread by me.

Wesley J. Smith: Berwick Wants to Do Away With 80% of “Dinosaur” Patient/Doctor Office Calls

First they did away with house calls, now Donald Berwick wants to dramatically restrict office calls. Or at least, that’s what the temporary (recess appointment) Medicare chief and rationing proponent advocated in a document he wrote and published before entering government while the head of the Institute for Health Care Improvement.

In Escape Fire: Lessons for the Future of Health Care, Berwick makes a breathtaking proposal that would seem to guarantee each of us all the health care we want, whenever we want to receive it .  From page 42:

The new system of access can be summarized in one phrase: “24/7/365.” The access to help that we will envision is uncompromising, meeting whatever need exists, whenever and wherever it exists, in whatever form requested.

Whoa. That certainly doesn’t sound like the Donald Bewick who has waxed romantically about the rationing board NICE and the UK’s NHS.

So, how do we square the two Donald Berwicks?  There’s a catch!  Berwick simply restricts the scope and meaning of “whatever need exists, whenever and wherever it exists, in whatever form requested” so that, as implemented, it would eliminate most  face-to-face patient/doctor interactions.  Again, from page 42:

Access 24/7/365 begins to be achievable only when we agree—scientists, professionals, patients,payers, and the health care workforce—that the product we choose to make is not visits. Our product is healing relationships, and these can be fashioned in many new and wonderful forms if we suspend the old ways of making sense of care.

The access we need to create is access to help and healing, and that does not always mean—in fact, I think it rarely means—reliance on face-to-face meetings between patients, doctors, and nurses. Tackled well, I believe that this new framework will gradually reveal that half or more of our encounters—maybe as many as 80 percent of them—are neither wanted by patients nor deeply believed in by professionals…

The health care encounter as a face-to-face visit is a dinosaur. More exactly, it is a form of relationship of immense and irreplaceable value to a few of the people we seek to help, and these few have their access severely curtailed by the use of visits to meet the needs of many, whose needs could be better met through other kinds of encounters.

Dinosaur? “Healing relationships?”  (Gobbledygook alert!)  80%!

Sure some efficiencies can be realized by having doctors available by phone, using e-mail, and having test results sent by computer. This is already done in some plans, such as my mother’s Kaiser Permanente Medicare program. But chat rooms, “group visits of patients” (what about privacy?), and other hands off methods, can only do so much and go so far. Moreover, doctors use face-to-face meetings for more than just exams.  Sometimes, a doctor can take one look at a long-time patient who might be unwell and tell that something is amiss.  In short, doctors need to see patients.

Berwick is thought of by some as a visionary.  He is certainly dedicated to bringing new ideas to the practice of medicine.  But it seems to me that when he wrote that we all should have total access whenever and however we want it, he wasn’t being straight.  He was really talking about another method of restricting care.  Moreover, it is one thing for younger and healthier patients to use more modern methods of communication.  It is another for the elderly and the relatively uneducated.  We aren’t all into I-phones.

That is why I fully expect–and want–his formal appointment as Medicare head to be rejected by the U.S. Senate.  Let him go back to the non profit sector where he can bubble over with ideas and promote futuristic medical procedures and processes–outside of the corridors of real power.

"We will not be silent.
We are your bad conscience.
The White Rose will give you no rest."

26 posted on 11/21/2010 12:26:45 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Thanks for the ping!


27 posted on 11/21/2010 7:33:37 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
All the talk in the world means nothing unless it actually happens.

Thread by me.

Cardinal Burke: It’s ‘very clear’ pro-abort politicians should be refused Communion

ROME, November 22, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On the eve his elevation to the Cardinalate on November 20, Archbishop Raymond (now Cardinal) Burke told a Vatican Radio interviewer that his stand on refusal of Communion to pro-abort politicians or public figures is based on “the God-centered thinking which has marked the discipline of the church” – namely, that a person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion.

Cardinal Burke spoke to Tracey McClure on November 19 about some of the challenges faced by the Church in the United States.

Cardinal Burke has never hesitated to make bold public statements in defense of the culture of life, and is viewed as a personal hero and the best of allies by those who are active in promoting faithful Catholic education, as well as those within the pro-life and pro-family movements. Notably, he has upheld and defended Cardinal Ratzinger’s instruction that persistently pro-abortion politicians or public figures must not be admitted to communion until they publicly repent.

McClure first described Burke “as a man with very firm ideas about the moral rectitude of those who profess Catholicism - ideas that don’t always sit comfortably with everyone - and I’m thinking of some of the remarks you’ve made about pro-abortion politicians, for example, receiving Communion - the Holy Eucharist - in the United States.” He then asked the Cardinal if he ever feels discouraged because people “aren’t getting the message.”

“I think it’s only natural to be tempted to discouragement, and I’ve had those temptations,” Cardinal Burke responded. “For instance, on the question of a person who publicly and obstinately espouses the right of a woman to choose to abort the infant in her womb receiving Holy Communion, strikes me as something very clear in the 2,000 years of the church’s tradition - she’s always firmly held that a person who is publicly and obstinately in grave sin should not approach to receive Holy Communion and, if he or she does, should be denied Holy Communion.”

Cardinal Burke explained that the sanction on receiving Communion for a person who publicly dissents from Church teaching is intended to “avoid for the person - himself or herself - committing a sacrilege: in other words, receiving the Sacrament unworthily, and also because the holiness of the Sacrament itself demands that one be in a state of grace to receive the Body and Blood of Christ.”

“It is discouraging that either members of the Church claim not to understand this or they claim that in some way there is an excuse for someone who is publicly and obstinately in grave sin to receive Holy Communion,” Cardinal Burke said.

“I look at it this way,” he continued. “This response on the part of many in the church comes from living in a society that’s completely secularized, and the thinking that is marked - the God-centered thinking which has marked the discipline of the church - is not easily understood by those who are bombarded day in and day out with a kind of God-less approach to the world and to many questions. So, I try not to get discouraged but try to continue to speak the message in a way that people can understand.”

Cardinal Burke expressed his understanding of the difficulty faced by his fellow priests in dealing with this issue.

“It’s difficult ... it hasn’t been easy for me to face this question with a certain number of Catholic politicians. And, I’ve had a number of priests speak to me and tell me how difficult it is when they have individuals in their parish who are in a situation of public and grave sin ... and so, they look ... to the bishop for encouragement and inspiration in dealing with this.”

However, the cleric said that is necessary to preach this message “in season and out of season, and whether it’s being warmly received or not being received or being resisted or criticized.” He stated that his committed stand on Church teaching is not only “speaking the truth with love as the Holy Scriptures say,” but that “when a bishop takes appropriate pastoral measures in this regard, he’s also helping very much brother bishops, and also the priests.”

Listen to the Vatican Radio interview with Cardinal Burke here.


28 posted on 11/28/2010 11:54:52 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: rhema; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
Nat Henthoff nails it!

Thread by rhema.

[Nat Hentoff] Real death panels coming our way

Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner in economics and an influential New York Times columnist, also has a blog, "The Conscience of a Liberal." On ABC's "This Week" (Nov. 14), during a discussion on balancing the federal budget against alarming deficits, he proclaimed the way to solve this problem is through deeply cost-effective health-care rationing.

"Some years down the pike," he said, "we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes." That would mean the U.S. Debt Reduction Commission "should have endorsed the panel that was part of the (Obama) health-care reform."

Sarah Palin was one of the first, and the most resounding, to warn us of the coming of government panels to decide which of us -- especially, but not exclusively, toward the end of life -- would cost too much to survive. She was mocked, scorned from sea to shining sea, including by the eminent Paul Krugman for being, he said, among those spreading "the death penalty lie" as part of "the lunatic fringe." (Summarized in "Krugman Wants 'Death Panels'" Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights (Nov. 15).

Soon after he had left the ABC Studio, someone must have alerted Krugman that -- gee whiz -- he had publicly rooted for death panels! Swiftly, on his blog, Krugman admitted he had indeed said those dreaded words, but: "What I meant is that health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they're willing to pay for -- not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we're willing to spend for extreme care."

"Extreme care," Professor Krugman? To be defined by government commissions, right? Noel Sheppard of media watchdog Newsbusters

(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...


29 posted on 11/28/2010 11:58:03 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
The real truth about abortionists.

Three threads by me.

The pro-abortion movement and the psychopathic mentality

November 24, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - When I read the words of pro-abortion leaders like Colombian psychologist Florence Thomas, who calls unborn babies “tumors” and says that they are only human if their mother wants them, a disturbing question comes to mind: what is, fundamentally, the difference between this type of perspective, so often expressed by abortionists, and the clinical definition of a “psychopath”?

Although the stereotypical image of a psychopath is that of a serial killer, or a dangerous madman locked in an asylum, psychologists tell us that such people only represent a small minority of those who fall under the category of a “psychopath.”  In fact, we are told, our society contains a larger number of psychopaths than we may suspect, and psychopaths may even disproportionately occupy positions of importance in business, government, and other important fields.

While psychopaths are theoretically capable of committing murder and other acts of cruelty without remorse, the definition of a psychopath is much broader than the image evoked by popular culture.  According to mental health professionals, a psychopath is someone who is fundamentally lacking in human empathy, who sees other human beings as mere objects of manipulation.  The relationships of a psychopath are typically superficial and fluid, and are often sexually promiscuous. The psychopath has a fundamentally egoistic, selfish personality, unable to transcend his own personal sense of self to recognize the dignity of others.

Psychologists estimate that up to four percent of the population falls under the definition of a “psychopath,” ranging from the more tame manifestations, which are included in the broad category of sociopathy or anti-social personality disorders, to the more extreme cases of serial killers. They are often able to deceive others with a veneer of sanity and reasonableness that hides their fundamentally predatory nature.

“Psychopathic” movements

The four percent figure, if accurate, implies that the United States includes a population of more than twelve million psychopaths or sociopaths, and globally the figure would theoretically reach into the hundreds of millions. This startling statistic inevitably raises the question: is it possible for psychopaths to group themselves into movements based on their common inclinations?  History suggests that this can, and indeed does happen.

The classic candidate for a “psychopathic movement” is that of the National Socialist or Nazi Party, which came to power in Germany in the 1930s through a series of economic catastrophes and inept decisions by the German political establishment. Adolf Hitler himself has been diagnosed posthumously with psychopathic tendencies, and many Nazis exhibited symptoms of the same. Moreover, although the majority of Nazis and the Germans who cooperated with them were probably not clinically psychopathic, the movement as a whole seemed to be predicated on a fundamentally psychopathic mentality, one that disposed of human beings as mere fodder for the racial aspirations of the German state.

The same tendencies have been found in other mass movements arising in the last century, especially Marxism, which left an unprecedented toll of tens of millions of deaths by execution and induced starvation in order to achieve its political ends. Again, although it is unlikely that most Marxists are clinical psychopaths, their movement has repeatedly spawned regimes that behave precisely the way one would expect of the most extreme sufferers of the disorder.

The troubled mentality of the pro-abortion movement

In light of the clinical definition of a psychopath, and the historic manifestations of “psychopathic” movements, it is difficult to avoid the comparison between psychopathy and the perspective that is openly expressed by many leaders in the global pro-abortion movement.

Florence Thomas is only one example of the troubled thinking that seems to characterize pro-abortion leaders.  Her comparison of her own unborn child to a “tumor,” that is, a diseased piece of tissue, is not only unscientific; it suggests a mind that is unwilling, or perhaps unable, to transcend itself and empathize with the humanity of another.  Her claim that a fetus is only human if it is desired by its parents is almost a caricature of ego-centrism, implying that one’s personal wishes confer dignity and rights on other people. The conclusion of Thomas flows inevitably from her premises; she believes that women should be free to kill their unborn children for any reason, in order to preserve their “freedom.”

Thomas’ thinking is echoed throughout the anti-life and anti-family movements of our age. Margaret Sanger, the founder of the modern birth control movement, spoke with the chilling rhetoric of eugenics when she dismissed children who are “unwanted” by their parents, referring to them as “human waste” in her 1920 work, “Women and the New Race.”

“Each and every unwanted child is likely to be in some way a social liability. It is only the wanted child who is likely to be a social asset,” wrote Sanger, who also asked, “Can the children of these unfortunate mothers be other than a burden to society—a burden which reflects itself in innumerable phases of cost, crime and general social detriment?”  In another chapter she infamously states that “the most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

The famous Princeton “bioethicist” Peter Singer applies the same fundamental principle embraced by Thomas, Sanger, and others, but takes it to a more explicit conclusion.  Singer acknowledges that unborn children are human beings, but openly denies that they have a right to life, unless their parents want them. Moreover, Singer extends this reasoning to infants after birth as well, offering a moral endorsement of infanticide.

“The difference between killing disabled and normal infants lies not in any supposed right to life that the latter has and the former lacks, but in other considerations about killing,” writes Singer in the second edition of his book, “Practical Ethics.” “Most obviously there is the difference that often exists in the attitudes of the parents. The birth of a child is usually a happy event for the parents ... So one important reason why it is normally a terrible thing to kill an infant is the effect the killing will have on its parents.”

“It is different when the infant is born with a serious disability,” Singer continues. “Birth abnormalities vary, of course. Some are trivial and have little effect on the child or its parents; but others turn the normally joyful event of birth into a threat to the happiness of the parents, and any other children they may have. Parents may, with good reason, regret that a disabled child was ever born. In that event the effect that the death of the child will have on its parents can be a reason for, rather than against killing it.”

Singer’s explicit endorsement of infanticide should be unsurprising to pro-life activists, who are aware that children who survive abortions are often left to die without medical help. A fundamental indifference to human life and the personhood of others is endemic among pro-abortion thinkers, which should bring pro-lifers to ask ourselves if we are really understanding our opponents in this debate.

In reading Florence Thomas’ recent account of her abortion, a tragically flawed personality comes to the surface. A brilliant woman with much to offer the world, Thomas faced a profound moral dilemma at the age of 22, and was hardly able to recognize it as such. She blithely refers to sexual intercourse with her boyfriend as “love,” as if she has no inkling of the concept beyond a physical act of pleasure, without any commitment or spiritual dimension. She dismisses her unborn child as a “tumor,” and says that she has never felt the slightest remorse for her decision to kill it.

As a human life and family news reporter, I have become all too accustomed to this mentality, and my response has changed over the years from feelings of outrage to a calm, resolute commitment to fight the culture of death and its perverse mentality by systematically exposing it. However, I increasingly find myself experiencing another response when I report such stories: a great sadness in the face of people who seem to be missing something fundamental in the deepest levels of their psyche, something that they may never have known by experience.

Are they suffering in silent desperation or are they utterly oblivious to their loss? Did they freely choose this path, or are they victims of something beyond their control?  Ultimately, is there anything that can be done for them, or are they doomed to play their grim role in the global empire of death?  I do not know, and cannot know. I can only pray for them, and leave it in the hands of a merciful God.

Related links:

Famous pro-abortion feminist calls unborn child a ‘tumor’

Women and the New Race, by Margaret Sanger (full text)

Excerpts from Practical Ethics, by Peter Singer, 2nd edition, Cambridge, 1993, pp. 175-217

____________________________________________________

Survey: 300 “Doctors” Do Late Abortions, 140 When Baby Feels Pain

With controversial late-term abortion practitioner LeRoy Carhart getting national attention over plans to expand his abortion business, a little-known 2008 study is gaining new attention.

The Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research organization previously affiliated with Planned Parenthood, released a study in 2008 titled “Abortion in the United States: Incidence and Access to Services, 2005.”

The study found there were at least 1,787 abortion “doctors” in the United States but it revealed stark numbers when it comes to those who do abortions later in pregnancy.

Of the 1,787, the study found that “[t]wenty percent of providers offered abortions after 20 weeks [LMP], and only 8% at 24 weeks [LMP].”

Though the numbers seem small, that translates to at least 300 “doctors” who who will perform abortions after 20 weeks LMP like LeRoy Carhart and, of those, 140 willing to perform abortions at 24 weeks LMP.

Mary Balch, an attorney who handle state legislation for the National Right to Life Committee, says the numbers are important because mainstream media outlets have attempted to make it appear there are very few practitioners willing to do late or late-term abortions.

“In an interview with Colorado abortionist Warren Hern published online November 5, 2010, Time Magazine perpetuated the prevalent myth that there are few, if any abortionists who perform abortions late in pregnancy,” she told LifeNews.com. “The Washington Post’s Rob Stein also furthered the myth in a November 10 piece saying that Carhart is ‘is one of the few in the country to perform abortions late in pregnancy.”

“The truth is, abortions in the fifth month of pregnancy and later are widely available,” she added.

But National Right to Life may have found a way to put these abortion practitioners out of business — by using a new type of state law that drove Carhart to seek opportunities to do late abortions elsewhere.

Carhart’s decision to move operations resulted from Nebraska’s enactment of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act earlier this year.  The law took effect October 15 and it protects unborn children in the fifth and sixth month of pregnancy or later by prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks following conception.

“Nebraska’s groundbreaking law protecting pain-capable unborn children is an example for other states in the nation,” Balch says. “LeRoy Carhart’s hopscotching around the nation to find areas that allow abortion for any reason, at any time, underscores the need for other states to pass similar legislation to put Carhart and the hundreds of other abortionists who perform abortions late in pregnancy out of business.”

“That more than 140 abortion providers are willing to kill unborn children who are capable of feeling the excruciating pain of abortion is a tragedy – a tragedy that we can easily stop in the state legislatures,” Balch told LifeNews.com.

The legislation is sorely needed because there are more late abortions and late-term abortions taking place in the United States than most people probably realize.

A May 2010 briefing by the Guttmacher Institute reveals .5% of the estimated more than 1.2 million elective abortions performed annually in the United States are on unborn children at 21 weeks LMP (19 weeks postfertilization) or older.

This translates to roughly 18,000 abortions annually – a substantial number of which probably occur at 22 weeks LMP or later, which is past the point that the best evidence indicates that the unborn child is fully capable of feeling pain (a point that may well occur earlier).

Balch says those findings are generally corroborated by the Centers for Disease Control Abortion Surveillance Report for 2006, released in November 2009.

In the 43 reporting areas for 2006 which reported gestational age to the CDC for its report, at least 1.3%, of abortions were performed at 21 weeks or later and several states either submitted no data or did not accurately report the age of the baby at the time of the abortion.

Not only does the legislation have the effect of prohibiting late abortions, Balch says it has a tremendous educational value by showing the public how abortions cause great pain for unborn children.

“Since 2007, medical research, triggered by the identification of consciousness in children lacking a cortex from birth, has indicated that nerve connection to the cortex is not essential to experience pain,” the NRLC attorney notes. “In fact, informed specialists have concluded that the subcortical plate, to which nerves from the pain receptors are linking at 20 weeks postfertilization, fulfills that function.”

Scientific studies dating back to 1987 confirm the existence of fetal pain at 20 weeks postfertilization (22 weeks LMP). 

The ability to target late and late-term abortions via this state legislation is so important that NRLC is planning a state legislative forum for pro-life leaders and state legislators on December 7.

“With pro-life electoral gains on November 2, the spring legislative sessions gives us a tremendous opportunity to enact a variety of protective pro-life laws in many states and put an end to abortions after the unborn child is capable of feeling pain,” Balch concludes. “Our number one priority at the state level is protecting mothers and their unborn children from the abortion industry and we have pro-life legislative majorities across the country to help make that happen.”

____________________________________________________

United States Sees 53 Million Abortions Since Roe in 1973

Americans saw a political milestone this month as more pro-life lawmakers were elected to the House of Representatives than ever before, but the nation also quietly reached a less joyful mark.

In January, the National Right to Life Committee provided a new analysis of the total number of abortions done in the 37 years since the Roe v. Wade decision.

The Supreme Court handed down its controversial ruling — allowing virtually unlimited abortions at any time throughout pregnancy — in January 1973. The NRLC analysis found that 52 million unborn children had been killed in abortions as of January.

The analysis also found that the best estimate for the current number of annual abortions in the United States — involving both the surgical abortion procedure as well as the dangerous abortion drug RU 486 — is 1.2 million.

As a result, the United States likely passed the 53 million abortion mark on November 1 — the day before Americans went to the polls to vote in a pro-life House majority and target President Barack Obama’s pro-abortion allies for defeat.

Obama has done everything in his power to advance abortion and continue that pro-abortion legacy of the Supreme Court, including naming two more pro-abortion jurists in Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. He has also expanded that 53 million abortions by authorizing abortion funding in various instances and decreasing funds for abstinence education.

In its survey of abortion numbers, NRLC goes to the source by relying on the Guttmacher Institute, the former research arm of Planned Parenthood, which receives numbers directly from abortion centers themselves.

That’s because the Centers for Disease Control has never tabulated accurate numbers of abortions. The CDC relies on figures from state health departments, some of which rely on voluntary reporting — and it hasn’t had data from some states such as California and New Hampshire for more than a decade.

“Because of these different methods of data collection, GI has consistently obtained higher counts than the CDC. CDC researchers have admitted it probably undercounts the total number of abortions because reporting laws vary from state to state and some abortionists probably do not report or under-report the abortions they perform,” NRLC explained in January.

Digging into the numbers, the NRLC analysis from earlier this year showed abortion numbers rising in the 1970s and, in the 1980s, abortion eventually mainstreamed itself to the point that about 1.55 million abortions were done annually until the early 1990s.

At that point, as crisis pregnancy centers began turning the corner with the use of ultrasounds, pro-life state legislation began to take hold and the Internet allowed the pro-life perspective to flourish, abortions began to decline.

“After reaching a high of over 1.6 million in 1990, the number of abortions annually performed in the U.S. has dropped back to levels not seen since the late 1970s,” NRLC says.

The Guttmacher Institutes most recent abortion figures, from 2005, confirm the downward trend from a high of 1.6 million abortions in 1990 to 1.2 million that year. Without any hard figures in the last few years, NRLC estimates the number of abortions from 2006 to today at the same rate of 1.2 million that GI reported.

To calculate the overall number of abortions, NRLC includes the hard figures from 1973-2005, the estimates for the last few years and also includes the Guttmacher Institute’s admission that its own figures are likely about three percent lower than the actual totals because of potential errors in reporting.

National Right to Life estimated that, in January, there have been 52,008,665 abortions using either surgical or the abortion drug (RU 486) method since Roe v. Wade.

NRLC director of research and education Randy O’Bannon talked with LifeNews.com at that time about the figures.

“Abortion has taken a terrible toll on America. We’ve now lost more than 52 million of our sons, daughters, friends, and neighbors and we are a much poorer nation for it,” he said.

“Over the past twenty years, however, we have seen that pro-life efforts can make a difference, as the number of abortions performed in the U.S. has declined from 1.6 million to 1.2 million a year. We’ve still a long way to go, obviously, but we see that pro-life legislation, education, and outreach can save and has saved hundreds of thousands of lives,” O’Bannon added. “Our task is great, but our cause is just.”


30 posted on 11/28/2010 12:02:54 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ..
It won't be enough until ALL of the abortuaries are shut down.

Thread by Coleus.

Closure of Two More Abortion Clinics Continues National Trend

Two notorious abortion mills have closed or are scheduled to close, contributing to the national trend of clinic closures first documented by Operation Rescue last year in "Project Daniel 5:25." 

In Yakima, Washington, the Cedar Women's Clinic, which was the first abortion clinic to open in that city 31 years ago, closed Monday due to a dramatic decrease in the demand for abortions. According to statistics kept by the state, the abortion rate for women ages 15 to 44 dropped from 18 per 1,000 in 2008 to 16.7 per 1,000 in 2009. One abortion clinic remains in Yakima.  In Michigan, Womancare of Downriver in Southgate owned by the troubled owner, abortionist Alberto Hodari, is currently in escrow to a physician whose practice does not include abortions. Once escrow closes, so will the abortion clinic.

One woman, Jennifer McCoy, is particularly relieved that Hodari's Southgate abortion clinic has been tentatively sold. That was where she says Hodari forced an abortion on her when she was 16-years old. "That clinic will never do another abortion again," she said.  All of Hodari's six Detroit area abortion clinics were put up for sale last year. Hodari appeared to be liquidating his assets so he could leave the country after repeated complaints, fines, and lawsuits have recently overwhelmed him. The closures continue a national trend of decreasing numbers of abortion clinics. Operation Rescue conducted extensive research and documented that over two-thirds of America's abortion clinics have closed since 1991, when there were over 2,100 clinics nationwide.

"When we released our 'Project Daniel 5:25' listing of all remaining surgical abortion clinics in the United States last December, there were 713. Today, counting the Southgate mill, which will soon close, there are only 694," said Operation Rescue spokesperson Cheryl Sullenger. "That great news for women and their pre-born babies." Twenty abortion clinics have closed in the past 11 months at a rate of nearly 2 per month. Operation Rescue maintains the most accurate listing of abortion clinics available on its Project Daniel 5:25 page. The project was named after the Biblical story of Daniel, who was able to read the handwriting on the wall and predict the fall of a wicked kingdom.

As a new feature, Operation Rescue has added names of some abortionists to the clinic list with links to documentation of their legal problems and abortion abuses.  "Government funding continues to artificially prop up a failing abortion industry. Without tax-funding, more of these clinics would fold," said Sullenger. "Until we can encode legal protections for the pre-born, we must work to expose and defund the abortion industry. Closing clinics is a proven way to reduce abortions and save lives."


31 posted on 11/28/2010 12:06:54 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
Peter Singer can hardly be considered human himself.

Thread by me.

Wesley J. Smith: Peter Singer Says Full Moral Status Not Earned by Babies “Until After 2 Years”

I was alerted by Nat Hentoff about an assertion made by Peter Singer–as reported in the Catholic Eye–at a  Princeton conference around the abortion question, in which he claims that human beings don’t possess full moral status until after the age of two. I checked it out for myself. Yup. From my transcription of Panel II on 10/15/10 (press “Event Videos,” 20101015-panel two, to link to access streamed session) :

Q (beginning at 1:25:22): When discussing at which point after birth we would give full moral status, you gave…a legal or public policy point about practicality… Forgetting the practical or public policy questions, if a person is a self aware individual and self awareness isn’t conferred by birth, and we use mirror tests to determine self awarness…at what point do you think an infant would pass the mirror test and therefore be self aware and be considered a person.

Singer (beginning at 1:27:18): … My understanding is that it is not until after the first birthday, so somewhere between the first and second, I think, that they typically recognize the  image in the mirror as themselves…Really, I think this is a gradual matter. If you are not talking about public policy or the law, but you are talking about when you really have the same moral status, I think that does develop gradually. There are various things that you could say that are sufficient to give some moral status after a few months, maybe six months or something like that, and you get perhaps to full moral status, really, only after two years. But I don’t think that should be the public policy criteria.

If you declare a human being to be intrinsically unequal–which is what denying full moral status to young children does–it can’t help but promote discrimination, and must eventually affect public policy and law once anti equality attitudes become widely accepted.  I mean, that is how slavery was justified–that people with black skin did not possess full moral status.  A different, but certainly odious, outcome would similarly result by denying full moral status to children before the age of two.

That point aside, what did Singer say the public policy should be, which is just a way, in my view, of weaseling out of the implications of his beliefs. Starting at 56:22, after stating he no longer holds that an infant does not have a right to life until 1 month after birth because it is “not a practical suggestion,” Singer says:

Maybe the law has to have clear bright lines and has to take birth as the right time, although maybe it should make some exceptions in the cases of severe disability where parents think that it is better for the child and better for the family that the child does not live…The position that allows abortion also allows infanticide under some circumstances…If we accept abortion, we do need to rethink some of those more fundamental attitudes about human life.

The last comment is very telling.  Abortion was once widely disdained, and was nearly universally illegal except for medical reasons. It is now broadly accepted because our perception of the value of fetal life changed, and is legal throughout most of the West. If we accept Singer’s views that children, perhaps past the age of two, do not possess full moral status, it would similarly change our perceptions about their lives, and ultimately lead to horrible practices and a concomitant change in public morality and law.

The Netherlands and its infanticide permissiveness further illustrates this process. Dutch doctors commit infanticide and nothing is done about it by authorities, even though it is technically murder, even though doctors have publicly published the guidelines they use in deciding which babies to kill.  And there is already talk about full legalization of infanticide–which was the incremental method used to move general euthanasia for those age 16 and up to full legality in the Netherlands.

We need to hear very clearly what Peter Singer advocates, and understand the consequences that would flow from accepting his brand of utilitarianism. Then, we need to run in the opposite direction and fully embrace human exceptionalism.  That is the only way to protect the lives of the weak and vulnerable specifically, and more broadly, guarantee universal human rights.20101015-panel two, to link to access streamed session) :

Q (beginning at 1:25:22): When discussing at which point after birth we would give full moral status, you gave…a legal or public policy point about practicality… Forgetting the practical or public policy questions, if a person is a self aware individual and self awareness isn’t conferred by birth, and we use mirror tests to determine self awarness…at what point do you think an infant would pass the mirror test and therefore be self aware and be considered a person.

Singer (beginning at 1:27:18): … My understanding is that it is not until after the first birthday, so somewhere between the first and second, I think, that they typically recognize the  image in the mirror as themselves…Really, I think this is a gradual matter. If you are not talking about public policy or the law, but you are talking about when you really have the same moral status, I think that does develop gradually. There are various things that you could say that are sufficient to give some moral status after a few months, maybe six months or something like that, and you get perhaps to full moral status, really, only after two years. But I don’t think that should be the public policy criteria.

If you declare a human being to be intrinsically unequal–which is what denying full moral status to young children does–it can’t help but promote discrimination, and must eventually affect public policy and law once anti equality attitudes become widely accepted.  I mean, that is how slavery was justified–that people with black skin did not possess full moral status.  A different, but certainly odious, outcome would similarly result by denying full moral status to children before the age of two

That point aside, what did Singer say the public policy should be, which is just a way, in my view, of weaseling out of the implications of his beliefs. Starting at 56:22, after stating he no longer holds that an infant does not have a right to life until 1 month after birth because it is “not a practical suggestion,” Singer says:

Maybe the law has to have clear bright lines and has to take birth as the right time, although maybe it should make some exceptions in the cases of severe disability where parents think that it is better for the child and better for the family that the child does not live…The position that allows abortion also allows infanticide under some circumstances…If we accept abortion, we do need to rethink some of those more fundamental attitudes about human life.

The last comment is very telling.  Abortion was once widely disdained, and was nearly universally illegal except for medical reasons. It is now broadly accepted because our perception of the value of fetal life changed, and is legal throughout most of the West. If we accept Singer’s views that children, perhaps past the age of two, do not possess full moral status, it would similarly change our perceptions about their lives, and ultimately lead to horrible practices and a concomitant change in public morality and law.

The Netherlands and its infanticide permissiveness further illustrates this process. Dutch doctors commit infanticide and nothing is done about it by authorities, even though it is technically murder, even though doctors have publicly published the guidelines they use in deciding which babies to kill.  And there is already talk about full legalization of infanticide–which was the incremental method used to move general euthanasia for those age 16 and up to full legality in the Netherlands.

We need to hear very clearly what Peter Singer advocates, and understand the consequences that would flow from accepting his brand of utilitarianism. Then, we need to run in the opposite direction and fully embrace human exceptionalism.  That is the only way to protect the lives of the weak and vulnerable specifically, and more broadly, guarantee universal human rights.


32 posted on 11/28/2010 12:11:31 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
Time was when American foreign policy was about keeping the world safe.

Thread by anniegetyourgun.

Hillary Clinton: Population Control Will Now Become The Centerpiece Of U.S. Foreign Policy

During remarks that she made for the 15th Anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the launch of a new program that according to Clinton will now become the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy.

(Excerpt) Read more at ht.ly ...


33 posted on 11/28/2010 12:14:31 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
The Schindlers understand that what happened to Terri can happen to anyone if the public is allowed to forget about it.

Thread by me.

Bobby Schindler: Society Ignores Terri Schiavo But Health Care Rationing Not Going Away

Last week, former U.S. President, George W. Bush released a memoir of his tenure in office called “Decision Points.” In this 500-plus page account, Bush revisits a number of official and personal events, as well as choices that shaped both his presidency and his attitudes in private life.

I was disappointed to learn that Bush’s actions in March of 2005—that led to the passage of Terri’s Law—were not a part of this account. On March 20, 2005 in what was called the Palm Sunday Compromise, Congress passed “Relief of the Parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo”—a law that gave the Federal court access to review of the case to dehydrate my sister, Terri Schiavo, to death. President Bush left his home in Texas—in the middle of the night—to return to Washington, D.C. in order to sign this bill into law.

Some would praise him as a pro-life hero and a friend to the disabled. Others sharply criticized him for involving himself in a state circuit case. Yet nearly all would remark that his actions were extraordinary and historic.

Why, then, has Bush not recounted that experience in his memoir? A friend has reasoned with me that Bush may have some regrets over the matter, or even embarrassment with how it was handled and eventually politicized by both politicians and the corporate media.

I tend to think there is something more at play. Indeed, no major media outlets or political pundits have revisited Terri’s case since her death in 2005. It’s almost as though a memorandum has been circulated warning those in positions of influence that Terri’s name is political poison, or that the notion of forced death died with Terri on that day in March.

Unfortunately, it did not. As we have seen through our work to protect the lives of disabled people, cases like Terri’s persist. They just simply aren’t getting the “face time” anymore.

People like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and so many others were tremendous supporters of Terri’s rights in the years we fought to protect her life. Now they’ve fallen silent on the issue, and it’s an issue that isn’t going away. It is most troublesome.

Care rationing and the act of denying profoundly disabled people ordinary care (such as food and hydration via feeding tubes, antibiotics, etc.) is as prevalent now as it was when Terri’s case was making its way through Florida’s Sixth Judicial Circuit. The reason you don’t hear about such things is clear: media leaders and public servants simply won’t talk about them.

There appears to be a fear of taboo in mentioning the Schiavo case, and perhaps that’s because of how it played out and how polarizing it ultimately became. But, let’s not forget that Terri’s case was one that was watched across the globe, was discussed by civil liberties proponents, in religious communities, through groups serving the needs of disabled people, and even in the halls of Congress.

This was no small story and it brought to light a very scary proposition: that your rights fall into incredible jeopardy the moment your life is touched by a disability or complicated illness.

The danger hasn’t gone away. Indeed, it might be getting worse. But the conversation that favors life has dried up. The debate over privacy interests has been dismantled. And the awareness of the rights of disabled and ailing people is all but a memory.

When you do hear chatter or witness opinion on life and death, it’s nearly always on the side of death. Recently economist and New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, opined that the answer to our current financial crisis is a combination of sales taxes and death panels. There’s that term again.

But Krugman is not alone. There are plenty of proponents of recent health care legislation that would be happy to tell you that cooler heads need to decide who’s fit to live and who’s entitled to receive wanted care. Not surprisingly, they oftentimes point out older Americans and those with incurable conditions as the ones who are no longer viable.

If we are to protect our own lives then we must reject such notions and be keenly aware of how the laws work, how to advocate for ourselves, and why it’s important to do so. That includes the sharing of knowledge on difficult cases, similar to Terri’s, and how they find their way into our country’s courts.

My sister’s situation presented a unique opportunity for those in the public eye to bring forward the issues surrounding health care, disability, personal liberties and retained rights. And prior to her death, they did. My family and others touched by this issue were grateful. But, where are they now?

It may go without saying, but rarely does a day go by that I don’t think about my sister and the suffering she was made to endure. I’m also very much aware that there are countless others who face the same fate, particularly so since the organization we established in Terri’s memory receives hundreds of calls from people who are desperate for help in defending a loved one’s life.

When Terri died, President Bush issued the following statement:

“Today millions of Americans are saddened by the death of Terri Schiavo. I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life, where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of others. The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak. In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life.”

He’s correct, of course. But if Mr. Bush is not writing and reflecting about it today—and if we’re not talking about it—then we’re not educating people like we should. Consequently, we’re not doing what’s necessary to spread that message. We’re pushing the issue aside and pretending it’s no longer a problem. Avoidance and denial of what happened to Terri is not going to save lives or protect the liberties of individuals today and in the future. Aggressively working to teach the public the truth about this vital topic so that innocent Americans can never be starved and dehydrated to death again is the right course and commitment.

The people who do not value your life have plenty to say; and they are rather bald-faced about it.

If people like President Bush truly believe the lives of vulnerable people are worthy of protection, they need to come back to the table and defend those lives with vigor and resolve— now, tomorrow and for years to come.

"We will not be silent.
We are your bad conscience.
The White Rose will give you no rest."

34 posted on 11/28/2010 12:18:26 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Thanks for the ping!


35 posted on 11/28/2010 8:14:38 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Amen, Bobby!! I can’t stand it that it seems that all the major perps got away with murder! May justice prevail in our lifetimes but doubtful that it will without a major player pushing for it.


36 posted on 11/29/2010 12:18:53 PM PST by Lesforlife (Co-sponsor Personhood CO 2010 ~ Woo Hoo 62!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Happy birthday Terri.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

37 posted on 12/03/2010 6:52:37 AM PST by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...

Remembering Terri on Her Birthday, December 3, 1963

Today, December 3rd is Terri's Birthday. Terri would have been 47 years of age and there is not a day that goes by that we don't think of our beloved sister and daughter.

It is because of Terri's unnecessary and inhumane death we established Terri's Network - to protect others like her. And just as we have been doing since her untimely death, we will remain devoted to helping protect all those that are in jeopardy of being put to death the same way Terri was.

Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network

38 posted on 12/03/2010 7:31:55 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I will never forget.


39 posted on 12/03/2010 8:45:38 AM PST by Saundra Duffy (For victory & freedom!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

Thanks for the reminder, BB.

I believe that she would have been 46 today. Happy Birthday, Terri. You will never be forgotten.


40 posted on 12/03/2010 9:13:57 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Thank God for Terri!


41 posted on 12/03/2010 9:35:09 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
Terri will not be forgotten. To show how naive I was - until I saw Jeb Bush drag his feet, I believed surely he or his brother the president will save her, that she will not be killed and in such horrible way.
42 posted on 12/04/2010 9:24:28 AM PST by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Dante3

I was just as naive. What shocked me more than anything else wasn’t any one person, like Jeb Bush. It was that about 8% of our population wanted her tortured to death. I still have a hard time accepting that.


43 posted on 12/04/2010 10:20:53 AM PST by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

I also cannot understand it - and the lack of overall outrage. I know a person strongly against abortion yet was okay with Terri’s fate.


44 posted on 12/04/2010 11:28:02 AM PST by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
The disabled and elderly will be immediately targeted.

Thread by bruinbirdman.

UK: Disabled will suffer from assisted dying law

Vulnerable elderly and disabled people will feel pressured to end their lives if the law on assisted dying is relaxed.

The Demos “commission” promises to examine all sides of the argument, but critics allege that its claims to be independent are undermined because it has received funding and support from campaigners to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill patients.

Richard Hawkes, chief executive of the disability charity Scope, said there was “a desperate need” for an open debate on the issue of assisted suicide.

But he continued: “We are deeply concerned that this pseudo ‘Commission’ will not reflect the concerns and fears of many disabled people.

“When it is funded by supporters of legalising assisted suicide and without a formal remit from Government, we would question how independent this Commission really can be.

“Many of the disabled people we talk to are extremely frightened by any weakening of the law on assisted suicide. We must be vigilant in ensuring that we never get to a position where disabled people feel abandoned and under pressure to end their lives.”

Dr Peter Saunders, campaign director of the Care Not Killing Alliance of 40 organisations opposed to assisted dying, said the commission appeared to be “a stitch up”.

The commission has received practical support from Dignity in Dying, and funding from the author, Terry Pratchett, a supporter of euthanasia, who has Alzheimer’s disease.

Demos insisted that the commission would remain “entirely independent” of Mr Pratchett and Dignity in Dying and would make recommendations

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...


45 posted on 12/05/2010 11:58:30 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
I guess the culture of death is hesitant to openly acknowledge their allegiance to Satan.

Thread by markomalley.

Lilith: the barren, sex-crazed, child-killing mascot of the abortion movement

November 29, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Every once in a while, one stumbles upon a terrifying level of honesty among abortion supporters. Normally, the truth is something that refreshes us when we come upon it - not so in this realm.

Such is the nomenclature of what appears to be a moderately successful group dedicated solely to providing low-income women with abortion money, called the Lilith Fund.

The Texas-based group explains its name on its website as follows: “Lilith was the first woman created by God, as Adam’s wife and equal. Because Lilith refused to be subservient or submissive, she was sent away from Eden.”

This is a somewhat accurate presentation of Lilith’s bio; however, it’s certainly not the whole story. Here’s how the Hebrew legend, as first described in the Alphabet of Ben Sira of the 8th-10th century, ends: after Lilith flew away (and was not sent) from Eden, God punished her by dictating that one hundred of her own demon children would be killed each day. She responds by asserting her perpetual desire to sicken and kill newborn infants.

The abortion industry’s poster girl if ever there was one.

In fact, the primordial population control expert bears a significance far beyond Hebrew culture. The recognition of Lilith, Lilit, or Lilitu as a demoness of night or wind traces an etymological path through the earliest civilizations, believed first to appear as early as 4000 BC in Sumer. “Lilith” may even be mentioned in the Bible, Isaiah 34:14: after God has reduced Edom to an uninhabitable waste, “the lilith … find[s] for herself a place to rest” there. In Assyrian, Babylonian, and Greek mythology, Lilith emerged as a strong symbol of perverse barrenness, a desert-dwelling monster with breasts devoid of milk, that terrified nearby mothers by strangling and devouring their children.

Unsurprisingly, as Adam’s supposed original wife, Lilith is touted in Wiccan and occult circles to this day as the “first Eve” or “first mother” over and above Eve herself and the New Eve, Mary, whose selfless openness to life represents Lilith’s pure inverse.

In her Greco-Roman incarnation, Lilith (Lamia in Latin) was an even more fascinating - and insightful - symbol of the total corruption of female fertility. There we learn the child-eating Lamia actually suffers unbearable grief from the sight of her own dead babies, a grief made eternal because Zeus had forced her eyes to remain open permanently. In a gesture of pity, Zeus allowed Lamia occasionally to find relief by pulling her eyeballs out of their sockets. (Well, that was nice.)

The bizarre myth, an uncanny portrait of post-abortive grief, echoes in testimonies from the women of Silent No More Awareness depicting decades of being torn with obsessive anguish over their lost little ones.

One might wonder what would possess the Lilith Fund to follow through with such a cheery mascot. On its Facebook page earlier this year, the group eerily invited fans to express their devotion to abortion by posting the phrase “I am meeting Lilith” as their status, “if you have had an abortion or know someone who’s had an abortion.”

The Fund notes that old Lil is today “the feminist icon of the free-spirited strong woman” - and in fact, the revoltingly barren, sex-crazed, child-killing monster has found favor in modern “feminist theology” as a symbol of rebellion against patriarchal repression. Other pro-abortion feminist organizations have snapped up the name as well. (One of several such blogs, The Lilith Plan, helps women self-abort and even provides gruesome instructions for an illegal do-it-yourself D&C abortion.)

It seems some abortioneers are at least honest enough to openly associate with the child-killing demon who is even more well-fed in our modern world than she was 6000 years ago. Even if relatively few, it’s a good reminder that some know exactly what it means to be “pro-choice.”


46 posted on 12/05/2010 12:02:28 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
I wonder if what happens if the ambulance with the butchers arrives first.

Thread by Free ThinkerNY.

City to Deploy Ambulances to Save Organs

Some 911 calls in Manhattan will now bring out two ambulances, one hurrying to the scene and one lagging slightly behind.

The first one will try to save the patient’s life. The second one will try to save the patient’s kidneys, in case the first ambulance fails.

After months of grappling with the ethical and legal implications, New York City medical officials are beginning to test a system that they hope will one day greatly increase the number of organs collected for transplant.

For five months starting Wednesday, the city will deploy a specially trained team that will monitor 911 calls for people who may be in danger of dying, like those having a heart attack. If efforts to resuscitate the patient fail, the team will quickly move in and try to save the kidneys; normally, patients who die outside hospitals cannot be donors because if too much time passes after the heart stops beating, the organs are unusable.

City officials said the project would be the first of its kind in the United States, though similar operations have been carried out in Europe. They said that they believed they had solved any ethical problems by adopting what they called very conservative standards for who would qualify as a donor.

To overcome fears that patients would be allowed to die for the sake of their organs, officials said that doctors and paramedics trying to resuscitate a patient would not be told whether the preservation unit was waiting in the wings until a supervisor had given the order to stop rescue efforts. The organ team, which will travel in a bright red and white ambulance marked “Organ Preservation Unit,” is supposed to remain out of sight.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


47 posted on 12/05/2010 12:05:11 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
Back when "60 Minutes" wasn't pushing death.

Thread by me.

Time Capsule: Mike Wallace hammers Margaret Sanger in 1957 interview

Mike Wallace interviews Margaret Sanger.

December 3, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In 1957, an aging Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and the international birth control movement, agreed to an interview with CBS News’ Mike Wallace. In stark contrast with the sympathetic reception Sanger could expect to receive today in a network television interview, Wallace hammered Sanger with difficult questions and caught her in contradictions, while Sanger squirmed, fidgeted, and denied statements she had made only a week earlier in pre-interview discussions with CBS staff.

This fascinating and sometimes chilling interview with Sanger can be found at the website of the Harry Ransom Center, which is located at the University of Texas, and which has published all of the installments of the Mike Wallace Interview from 1957 and 1958.  In the interview, Sanger expounds upon her views on a variety of topics, including birth control, eugenics, population growth, homosexuality, marriage, and religion.

Among the more revealing moments is Sanger’s explanation of the “greatest sin” of having children who violate her eugenic standards, and “have no chance ... to be a human being practically.”

Asked if she believes in sin, Sanger tells Wallace: “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world, that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically, delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things, just marked when they’re born.  That to me is the greatest sin that a people can commit.”

However, pressed by Wallace about her beliefs about “sin,” Sanger at first refuses to answer, and then balks at recognizing infidelity as such. “I don’t know about infidelity, it has so many personalities to it, and what a person’s own belief is, I couldn’t generalize,” she says, after Wallace insists that she respond to the question.

Sanger balks even more when Wallace begins to cite statements she has made publicly, even to his own staff, claiming that she has been misquoted. At first Sanger rejects the claim made in the woman’s magazine Redbook, in reference to contraception, that “immunity from parenthood encourages promiscuity particularly when unmarried persons can so easily avail themselves of the [birth control] devices.” But Wallace then reads Sanger’s own words from a Philadelphia Daily News article from 1942, encouraging the use of birth control to avoid “illegitimacy.”

“You were not advocating Christian morality but rather ways for single women to avoid bearing illegitimate children,” Wallace tells her. “I doubt it,” Sanger responds curtly. “I don’t believe I ever made such a remark.”  Sanger also denies telling a CBS staff member that “it should be made illegal for any religious group to prohibit dissemination of birth control, even among its own members.” “I don’t think I said it quite that way,” she protests.

Given Margaret Sanger’s role in founding Planned Parenthood, one might expect the interview to mention abortion, but the topic is only addressed in passing. When the interview was conducted in 1957, abortion was illegal throughout the United States, and Sanger always claimed to oppose the practice, as did Planned Parenthood at that time.  However Planned Parenthood would go on after Sanger’s death in 1966 to become the biggest abortion provider in the world, focusing mainly on the impoverished groups whom she had once referred to as “human waste.”

Asked about her belief in God, “in a sense of a divine being that rewards or punishes after death,” Sanger responds, “I have a different attitude about the divine. I feel that we have divinity within us.  And the more we express the good part of our lives, the more the divine within us expresses itself.”  She claimed to be Episcopalian.

See the whole interview here.


48 posted on 12/05/2010 12:10:42 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
Wesley J. Smith has posted two pieces on just how depraved Europe is becoming.

Both threads by me.

Belgium: Court Approves “Wrongful Life” Rule that Disabled Child Should Never Have Been Born

Belgium’s euthanasia law permits people to be killed by doctors because they are disabled.  In such a discriminatory setting, is it any wonder that a Belgian court has now approved the odious notion of a wrongful life.  From the story (may have to hit translation button):

The Court of Appeal in Brussels responds positively to this extremely sensitive issue. After noting that “certainly, the misdiagnosis did not cause the child’s disability, which existed before the error and which could not be remedied,” the Court considers that, “however, the injury must be compensated is not the disability itself, but the fact of being born with such disabilities. “ Thus, the child, the voice of his parents, may claim compensation for physicians who, through their fault, some were injured and legitimate interest to be a therapeutic abortion, as granted that his mother would have been appeal if it had been duly informed of the condition during pregnancy. In the opinion of the Court, by entering in the Penal Code article 350, paragraph 2, 4, authorizing therapeutic abortion, “the legislature must have intended to help avoid giving birth to children with abnormalities serious, having regard not only to the interests of the mother but also to that of the unborn child itself. ”

This is the first time in Belgium that an appellate court receives such a wrongful life action (wrongful life). Previously, a trial court of first instance of Brussels, released April 21, 2004, had adopted a similar solution, about a child with Down syndrome.

This is “life unworthy of life” thinking, “useless eater” invidious discrimination against people with disabilities of the most pronounced kind.  It breeds a deadly contempt for our brothers and sisters with disabilities.  And the scary part: The Belgians see themselves as the epitome of modern tolerance because they couch their bigotry in oozing words of compa-aaaaa-ssssssion! Vile and disgusting.

Culture of death, Wesley?  What culture of death?

______________________________________________________

Dutch Pat Themselves on the Back For Infanticide: We Have a Protocol!

This is the Dutch in a nutshell: If it is “transparent,” then it is okay. That opens the door to a lot of wickedness. Take infanticide.  Dutch doctors kill babies born with terminal and disabling conditions.  But rather than being ashamed, some are apparently proud because it is done according to procedure.  From a Radio Netherlands Worldwide report:

Instead of emulation, Dutch euthanasia policies have over the past ten years mainly met with criticism: “After euthanasia and infanticide, the next step in the Netherlands will most likely be a suicide pill for people who are tired of life, even though it will probably take a few years before it’s legal.” (Correspondent Greg Burke, Fox News)”

Uh, the “tired of life” proposal was first made by the then Minister of Health the day after euthanasia was formally legalized, and is now to be debated in the Parliament after  to a petition signed by more than 100,000 Dutch citizens demanded it:

“The Nazi laws and Hitler’s ideas have made a comeback in Dutch euthanasia laws and the debate about how sick children are killed.” (Italian minister Carlo Giovanardi) The criticisms regarding the killing of children refer to a medical protocol drawn up by neonatologists for the termination of life for newborn babies who are suffering unbearable pain without a prospect of improvement. Professor Van Leeuwen says: “You could ask yourself if it was even necessary”.

I see: Killing babies is okay because , “We have a protocol.”  How very postmodern Dutch.

And here is a really telling point: As I write this, the Dutch are prosecuting a right wing politician for making nasty comments about the Koran. If convicted, he will face jail for a felony.  But doctors openly commit infanticide–which remains murder under Dutch law–and they are applauded.  Free speech, no!  Killing, yes!


49 posted on 12/05/2010 12:13:33 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

They promote a dangerous agenda.


50 posted on 12/06/2010 12:05:11 PM PST by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson