Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Remembering Terri Schiavo: A Five-Year Anniversary Marked By Cruel Bigotry
Townhall ^ | 3/31/10 | Bobby Schindler

Posted on 03/31/2010 5:10:34 AM PDT by wagglebee

March 31st will mark the five-year anniversary of the needless death of my sister, Terri Schiavo.

It is difficult to believe this much time has passed since that horrible event which will be forever seared into my memory.

I wish I could say things have changed for the better since my sister’s death or that people with cognitive disabilities are now better protected in response to the horror she had to endure.

Tragically, however, it seems the rights of the brain-injured, elderly and others are still being violated.

All one has to do is look at what happened just last week. On March 21st, Fox aired an episode of The Family Guy that featured a "sketch" called "Terri Schiavo: The Musical." I was astonished at the producer’s cruel bigotry directed towards my sister and all cognitively disabled people.

Sadly, although more offensive than what my family has seen in the past from the media since Terri died, the bald-faced ignorance expressed in that episode of The Family Guy was nothing new. In fact, all signs indicate that we have embarked on a very disturbing path.

There is no disputing that Terri’s life – and death – had an astonishing impact on our nation. Our family still receives letters, emails and phone calls almost every day from people who tell us how Terri’s story touched them in profound ways, particularly when they come to know the facts.

Indeed, it was because of my family’s experience trying to protect Terri that we realized how all persons with similar cognitive disabilities are completely vulnerable to state laws that currently make it “legal” to deny them the most basic care – food and water.

This horrifying realization was why we established Terri’s Foundation. In Terri’s name, my family now works to protect tens of thousands of people with similar brain-injuries from having their fundamental freedoms taken away by an aggressive anti-life movement hell-bent on portraying severely disabled and otherwise vulnerable human beings as nothing more than “useless eaters”.

If the amount of phone calls we receive is any indication, what happened to Terri has become common. I think most people have no idea how our individual rights to make decisions about basic care like food and water, antibiotics, etc., have been so dramatically eroded. This not only includes family members advocating for loved ones but also protecting oneself by medical directive.

We recently heard from a woman whose mother was being cared for at a hospice facility. The daughter was powerless to effectively advocate for her mother because she had no power of attorney.

Even though she was her mother’s next-of-kin, and despite the fact her mother was begging her for food, the daughter was not allowed to feed her. It had been determined the mother was no longer able to swallow. But the daughter said her mother was eating safely just prior to being sent to hospice and questioned whether she still could. The mother was not given a feeding tube, and died just a short time later.

Perhaps the “Death Panels” Sarah Palin spoke of sounded like bombastic language. Yet when Palin added this term into our nation’s debate on health care, I believe she did not realize that many hospitals and facilities already have something frighteningly similar. Ethics committees are making many life and death decisions about patients, including whether to withhold simple provisions.

In a seemingly clandestine way, these ethics committees – comprised of medical and legal professionals – are empowering facilities to make life and death decisions independent of the family or a person’s own wishes.

The chilling stories we receive make it clear few citizens have any idea how vulnerable they are when it comes to judgments left in the hands of these ethics committees and facilities. And with the federal government now controlling our health care, there is no reason not to believe that these types of committees won’t become nationalized. Particularly when a health care system has been sabotaged by cost factors and quality of life judgments.

When our office receives phone calls from people fighting for their loved ones, I cannot help but look back and reflect on the courage of many individuals and groups who advocated on behalf of my sister.

As time has passed, however, many of those people, organizations and politicians – even many of our own friends – have fallen silent. Many who once ardently supported Terri’s life no longer actively educate or advocate for vulnerable patients.

With each troubling phone call from a frantic family, I am reminded there are countless other Terris in desperate need of our voice. Terri’s Foundation has been successful helping to save some, but sadly so many others have fallen victim.

I understand our nation faces many challenges today that may threaten our very existence. But how can we claim to be a just and honorable society, deserving of any blessing at all, if we richly reward hateful bigots while refusing to protect our weakest citizens?

Moreover, how did the tremendous courage and kindness we saw when we were fighting for Terri’s life have faded? How can any of us abandon this issue when all signs are that things are getting worse?

There are still many who support our efforts, who recognize the erosion of the value and dignity of the medically weak and who believe in protecting the life and liberty of all human beings.

The problem is their voices are often drowned out by the din of the pro-death lobby that claims death is the only dignified answer to a complicated problem.

Meanwhile the pro-death movement has not fallen silent. Rather, it has grown more vocal. The issue for them did not die with Terri. Indeed, their success in killing her seems to have only bolstered their determination to gain wider acceptance among the American people.

There will always be people with needs, there will always be others who work tirelessly to help them, and there will always be those who turn the other way; or worse – sit behind their drawing tables, disseminating cruel bigotry and hatred toward the disabled and vulnerable.

Until we all recognize that our inherit worth doesn’t change because of life’s circumstances, illness, disability or other events, we will continue to rob our most vulnerable of their right to fairness, justice and the ability to guide their own course in life.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bravery; braveryagainstevil; euthanasia; moralabsolutes; prolife; terridailies; terrischiavo; whiterose
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-230 next last
To: GonzoII; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
God's truth will ALWAYS be victorious in the end!

Thread by GonzoII.

More Abortion Workers Quit with Pro-Lifers' Help

Commentary by David Bereit, National Director, 40 Days for Life

May 20, 2010 ( - A few nights ago, I shared the stage at a pregnancy center banquet in San Antonio with Abby Johnson, the former Planned Parenthood director who experienced a profound conversion and left the abortion industry during last fall's 40 Days for Life campaign.

As Abby shared the story of her conversion, I was  again amazed at how God has transformed her life - through the prayers and efforts of faithful people. (To see a brand-new video of Abby sharing her story - and the impact of 40 Days for Life on her - click here.)

Abby is just one of 35 abortion workers who have quit their jobs at 40 Days for Life locations. We just received two more amazing reports ...

Mike Stack, 40 Days for Life leader in Southfield, Michigan, reports:

"A week or so ago we got word that the office manager at the Womancare Abortion facility where we have been holding the Southfield 40 Days for Life vigils quit her job.

"A few of the prayer warriors during the Spring campaign had befriended her and found out that she really didn't like working there but felt trapped and unable to find another job. One of the prayer warriors, Christine, arranged to get her resume and did a professional upgrade for her.

"We put the word out to our prayer warriors and a couple months later Casey found a new job and has happily quit working for the abortion facility."

Stack said he later learned that a man whose car had fallen into a ditch at the same clinic had run off with a pro-lifer's cell phone - but even that event, he said, had been "used" by God: Christine and the office manager had started up their conversation after both were drawn to the peculiar sight of the car in the ditch. "Praise God!" he said.

And here is the latest from one of the 40 Days for Life coordinators in a location that must remain anonymous for now:

"I just got word from an anonymous doctor friend of mine that an old school buddy of his quit the abortion clinic in our town, due to the peaceful 'local uprising over the past year' that made him feel 'bad' about what he was doing! He couldn't handle how gentle and nice we were to the women going in, and even to him, as he came out.

"It is truly a miracle that a soul so hardened has been touched by the peaceful and prayerful witness at the abortion mill! Peace, prayers and love works miracles -- the gentleness, honestly and love saves souls in the long run!"

Regardless of what is happening in the politicalarena or with the latest Supreme Court nomination, know that with God ALL things are possible - changing minds, touching hearts, saving lives, and impacting eternal souls.

101 posted on 05/23/2010 10:25:39 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
Obamacare could make this nightmare the only permissible treatment.

Thread by me.

Assisted suicide is not the answer for the terminally ill

Revisionist history has been released to an impressionable public in the HBO Movie “You Don’t Know Jack.” Contrary to Al Pacino’s portrayal of Jack Kevorkian that makes him the compassionate defender of patients’ rights, physician-assisted suicide enters a world of potential mixed motives and moral chaos.

By any standard, assisted suicide (or active euthanasia) is quite different from simply allowing nature to take its unimpeded course. It is popularly called “mercy killing.” Both morally and practically, this is easily distinguishable from simply permitting the death of a hopelessly ill woman or man (i.e., passive euthanasia). It should be opposed by ethically sensitive people.

Physician-assisted suicide is in direct conflict with our tradition of upholding the sanctity of human life. Whether preserved in the Ten Commandments or the Hippocratic Oath, that tradition says we are to affirm, nurture and give aid to people in pain.

For active euthanasia and assisted suicide will communicate the message that persons who are terminally ill have a duty to get out of the way of the living.

For example, suppose a cancer patient for whom treatment has been ineffective tells his or her family, “I know I’m a terrible burden to you, and I wonder if I shouldn’t just end my own life!”

I can imagine two responses.

“What do you mean!” says one family. “You are central to our lives. We love you, and you could never be a burden to us!” That answer communicates a relationship that inspires a will to live for the patient.

“Perhaps we should think about that,” replies another family member. “You might suffer toward the end, and we’re not really rich enough to hire nurses so you can be cared for while we stay at our jobs.” With such openness to the idea of dying, what feelings are likely to go through the mind of that patient?

Studies show that treatment for depression moves the vast majority of sufferers to think of active euthanasia as unacceptable for themselves. The alternative to making suicide easier and more acceptable is effective palliative care — which includes treatment for depression as well as degenerative disease or injury — and loving concern from family and friends.

In the Netherlands, where active euthanasia by medical personnel has been practiced for some time now, the issue quickly ceased to be assistance to persons requesting it and initiated debates over euthanizing some who had not.

“I don’t care about the law,” Kevorkian once said. “I have never cared about anything but the welfare of the patient in front of me.” What a strange claim from a pathologist who has no experience in the clinical treatment of patients! But most of us do care about the law. We care about law grounded in serious ethical reflection that affirms human worth in ways that affirm people rather than eliminate them when they need us most. Our call is not to become gentle executioners. Instead, it is to provide effective and morally responsible care to the suffering.

102 posted on 05/23/2010 10:32:12 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
Terri's Legacy continues to haunt the leftist culture of death.

Thread by me.

Bobby Schindler: Media Attacks Against Terri Schiavo, Schindler Family Continue Five Years Later

As you know, it's been over five years that we all lived through the barbarism of Terri's death. And since Terri died, our family has been astonished to the extent that her brain injury has been the focus of repeated mean-spirited media attacks. If that wasn't enough, the work of Terri's Foundation is now being included in these attacks!

In our last E-Newsletter we informed you about what happened on National television—within days of the anniversary of Terri's death—when an episode of Fox's The Family Guy program parodied Terri with a school play called, "Terri Schiavo: The Musical." (Click on "The Family Guy" icon to read about our continuing on-line petition.)

Recently, a local Florida TV Station smeared the Foundation with a baseless report claiming that we were profiting from our sister's tragedy. The reporter's key witness: Terri's estranged husband, Michael Schiavo.

If that wasn't bad enough, a National radio shock jock, in an act of gross insensitivity, has joined many of his media brethren, boasting that he's glad our Dad is dead, repeatedly making fun of Terri's brain-injury, and is accusing the Foundation of dishonest activity.

It has become painfully clear to us that the secular media has one objective: succeed in making Terri's Foundation go away.

Please know that despite these constant attacks our family and everyone with Terri's Foundation are committed to helping other families and their loved ones.

Terri's Foundation has given support to countless families, and has been actively involved in hundreds of cases, helping families protect their loved ones since Terri's death in 2005.

Indeed, we recognize every day how important your support is to the success of what we are doing. It is because of your generosity that we can continue our non-stop efforts, advocating for these families that are working tirelessly to ensure their loved ones receive proper care.

So thank you for supporting us in this never ending fight against a growing culture that is relentlessly attacking our most vulnerable. With your assistance, we will continue to do what we can to protect the rights of the elderly, the chronically sick and people with profound cognitive brain injuries.

We can stand the Big Media attacks, but we need you to stand with us!

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

103 posted on 05/23/2010 10:34:43 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Thanks for the ping!

104 posted on 05/23/2010 10:39:15 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: julieee; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
I think the British people will start seeing a lot more "collateral damage" as Britain's Big Murder launches their new TV campaign to kill babies.

Threads by julieee and me.

Woman Dies From Botched Abortion at Marie Stopes Clinic

London, England -- As the Marie Stopes International abortion business begins running abortion ads on television in England tonight, news surfaces that a woman in India died from a botched legal abortion at an MSI abortion center. She is one of several women to have died recently in India from failed abortions.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Britain to See Abortion Ad on TV for First Time Tonight, Legal Challenge Looms

London, England ( -- British television viewers will see an ad promoting abortions for the first time on TV tonight on Channel 4. However, a pro-life legal group is hoping a last-minute legal action can stop the television ads for the Marie Stopes International abortion business.

The Committee of Advertising Practice and the Broadcast Committee on Advertising Practice allowed rules changes that paved the way for the new ads.

Without the television and radio commercials, MSI has relied on magazines, taxi and bus ads, and advertising through alternative newspapers.

The ad will run on Channel 4 after 10:00 p.m. but the Christian Legal Centre informed The Sun newspaper it hopes to block what it calls an advertisement for the "destruction of human life."

"Members of the public will be enraged that such adverts are allowed to be beamed into their living rooms, especially as early as 10.10pm, when very many teenagers are around," CLC director Andrea Minichiello-Williams told the newspaper.

"Over 200,000 abortions take place each year in the UK and the figures are not falling. So-called 'family planning' is a multimillion-pound industry and should not be aided by TV advertising," she said. "The notion that the destruction of human life can be advertised freely on TV as a service to the public is outrageous."

The television commercials asks if women "are late" -- in terms of whether they missed their last period -- and advises them to call a 24-hour abortion hotline.

Marie Stopes International chief executive Dana Hovig told the Sun that the abortion business received 350,000 calls last year and hopes to increase that number with the television spots.

"We hope the new Are you late? campaign will encourage people to talk about their choices, including abortion, more openly and honestly," she said.

Julia Acott, a counseling manager for CareConfidential, also opposes the ads.

"I do not think it is a good thing to have this aired openly and publicly," she stated.

Anthony Ozimic, communications manager for SPUC, a major pro-life organization, criticized the coming ads.

“Marie Stopes may claim to be a non-profit organization, but they have a financial interest in drumming up demand for abortion. Marie Stopes has a cavalier attitude to obeying legal restrictions regarding abortion, and has been implicated in illegal abortions overseas," he said.

"Neither Marie Stopes nor any similar organization should be allowed to advertise the killing of unborn children," he added.

“Allowing abortion to be advertised on TV will lead to more unborn babies being killed and to more women and girls suffering the after-effects of abortion. Abortion ads will trivialize abortion," Ozimic continued. "It is an insult to the hundreds of women hurt by abortion every day. Such ads are offensive and will mislead viewers about the reality of abortion."

The group points out that, technically, abortion is in English law a criminal offence and advertising of a criminal offence is not permitted. Also, English law also prohibits the advertising of restricted (i.e. on prescription) medical procedures, such as abortion.

"The Broadcasting Act 1990 requires that advertising is not offensive or harmful. Abortion is offensive to the countless women damaged by abortion; and lethally harmful to the hundreds of unborn children aborted every day," the SPUC official continued.

Last year 29,000 people signed a SPUC-organized paper petition to the prime minister against a proposal to allow abortion agencies to advertise on television and radio.

Related web sites:
Society for the Protection of Unborn Children -

105 posted on 05/31/2010 10:17:31 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
Of course they lie!

Thread by me.

Abortionist under Investigation for Forced Abortion Says he “Lies” to Patients

DETROIT, Michigan, May 25, 2010 ( – A Michigan abortionist is under renewed scrutiny over comments he made over two years ago, in which he said that doctors have a license to “lie” to their patients.

The comments were made by Dr. Abraham Alberto Hodari to medical students at Wayne University. Hodari currently is facing a lawsuit for allegedly forcing a woman to submit to an abortion after she had changed her mind, killing the unborn baby that she had decided she wanted.

“My wife says we doctors have a license to lie, and it’s true, it’s absolutely true. Sometimes you need to lie to a patient about things that they want to do or no,” Hodari told a gathering at Wayne State University on November 9, 2007.

He said it was not so much the case today, saying that the reason is that women “are more educated, between CNN and the internet, the patients are more educated about what we do.”

He then added, “I have great satisfaction about what I do, and I never feel bad or worried about doing abortions.”

Hodari’s remarks have only added more ammunition to the lawsuit pending against him in Genessee County Circuit Court.

NBC25 reported on the comments and asked for an explanation from the abortionist. Hodari claimed that he was only referring to situations where the woman’s life would be in danger, and said that a doctor must “never” tell a patient “you’re going to die.”

“And in that respect, yes, we lie,” insisted Hodari.

However, the context of Hodari’s remarks, in which he mentioned how proud he was to be an abortionist, had nothing to do with telling women that they were dying.

Caitlin Bruce is one ex-client of Hodari, who claims he did exactly to her what he told the Wayne medical students: lied to her, and forced her to abort a baby she wanted. Bruce that Hodari and his assistant forcibly held her down to the operating table and "ripped the life out of me that day."

Bruce’s alleged forced abortion happened at Hodari’s Flint abortion center, the Feminine Health Care Clinic.

Tom R. Pabst, Bruce’s attorney, told NBC25 that Hodari violated Bruce’s right to back out of a medical procedure and the video will serve as evidence against him.

"Whether it's a sexual advance or a medical procedure, if she says, ‘No, stop,’ that's the end of it," Pabst told the local news station.

"What he’s saying is that he knows what’s better for your body than you do, and he’s going to go ahead and do what he thinks is best for a woman’s body, not the woman. To me he’s got it flipped."

Bruce's story aligns with testimonies from other women who have described similar horror stories of coerced abortions at Hodari's hands.  A report by Operation Rescue shows Hodari has a record of 49 documented lawsuits over a span of decades.

Hodari's practice has also been implicated in the deaths of at least four women from abortion-related complications.  In June 2009, the Disciplinary Subcommittee of Michigan's Board of Medicine fined Hodari $10,000 for negligence in connection with the botched abortion death of Regina Johnson. 

Numerous complaints have been filed against the abortionist for improper disposal of human remains and abortion records found in Hodari's dumpster.  Hodari received a sentence of six months' probation on one such count in February.

In November, Hodari put his abortion clinics on the market along with his collection of expensive classic cars and hastily filed for divorce from his wife of 29 years. Local activists told Operation Rescue that it appeared that he was attempting to liquidate his assets so he could flee the country, possibly to his former home in Argentina.

See related coverage by

Abortionist Hodari Officially Under Investigation for Forced Abortions

Alleged Forced Abortion Victim Says Abortionist "Ripped the Life" Out of Her

Forced Abortion, Rape Victim Comes Forward After Abortionist Given Slap on the Wrist

106 posted on 05/31/2010 10:20:40 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
Surprise, surprise, Zero found another person who believes in rationing.

Thread by me.

Obama Nominee to Head Medicare, Medicaid Post Favors British Rationing

Washington, DC ( -- President Barack Obama has appointed another nominee for an influential government position who will upset pro-life advocates. But, this time, the nominee poses concerns not on abortion but on end-of-life issues like euthanasia, and rationing of health care.

Obama selected Dr. Donald Berwick to become the director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the office that oversees government health care programs.

Berwick is an outspoken admirer of the British National Health Service and its rationing arm, the National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness (NICE). Other critics have predicted since the earliest days of the Obama administration that NICE-style health care was coming.

That includes Wesley J. Smith, who has frequently condemned the approach.

During a 2008 speech to British physicians, Berwick said “I am romantic about the National Health Service. I love it," and calling it “generous, hopeful, confident, joyous, and just.”

Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, wrote more about the problems with Berwick in an opinion column at the Daily Caller.

Recalling that opponents of the government-run health care bill were blasted for bringing up "death panels," Tanner writes: "But if President Obama wanted to keep a lid on that particular controversy, he just selected about the worst possible nominee."

In his comments lauding the British health care system, Tanner says "Berwick was referring to a British health care system where 750,000 patients are awaiting admission to NHS hospitals."

" The government’s official target for diagnostic testing was a wait of no more than 18 weeks by 2008. The reality doesn't come close. The latest estimates suggest that for most specialties, only 30 to 50 percent of patients are treated within 18 weeks. For trauma and orthopedics patients, the figure is only 20 percent," he writes.

"Overall, more than half of British patients wait more than 18 weeks for care. Every year, 50,000 surgeries are canceled because patients become too sick on the waiting list to proceed,' he continues.

"The one thing the NHS is good at is saving money. After all, it is far cheaper to let the sick die than to provide care," Tanner adds.

NICE is at the forefront of the rationing in the British health care system.

"It acts as a comparative-effectiveness tool for NHS, comparing various treatments and determining whether the benefits the patient receives, such as prolonged life, are cost-efficient for the government," Tanner explains. "NICE, however, is not simply a government agency that helps bureaucrats decide if one treatment is better than another. With the creation of NICE, the U.K. government has effectively put a dollar amount to how much a citizen’s life is worth."

Tanner points out that Berwick has already admitted health care rationing is coming.

“It’s not a question of whether we will ration care,” the Obama nominee said in a magazine interview for Biotechnology Healthcare, “It is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

Tanner concludes: "Recent reports suggest that the recently passed health care bill will be far more expensive than originally projected. As it becomes apparent that that ObamaCare is unsustainable, the calls for controlling its costs through rationing will grow louder. With Donald Berwick running the government’s health care efforts, those voices will have a ready ear."

107 posted on 05/31/2010 10:24:24 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
The love fest for Tiller the Killer is here.

Thread by markomalley.

Reid Leads Senate Tribute Of Notorious Baby-shredder

More proof that liberals - especially those who scuttle through the halls of the Senate - are pro-abortion. As the one-year anniversary approaches of the martyrdom of St Tiller murder of infamous late-term abortionist George Tiller, Sen. Reid (most likely at the behest of pro-abortion groups) read a tribute statement on the floor of the Senate today.

How about a Senate tribute for the 1.2 million unborn babies aborted since May 31, 2009?

Utterly despicable.

May God have mercy on all our souls.

108 posted on 05/31/2010 10:26:37 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: narses; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ..
This is an abomination!

Thread by narses.

Dr. Grossman: a Catholic Funded Abortionist in Colorado's Four Corners

Dr. Richard grossmanDr. Richard Grossman M.D. is the only abortionist in over 200 miles, and he's not shy about publicly touting his grisly profession. 

Every Wednesday of every week, Dr. Grossman kills children at the Durango Planned Parenthood.  He charges a sliding scale based on the age of the child.  For killing a child of 5-11 weeks he charges $425, 12-13 weeks $515, 14-15 weeks $780, and 16-17 weeks costs $880.

Pictures of what each of these children look like after they are aborted at these different stages of development can be seen here.

I first learned of Dr. Grossman, on Wednesday, Novemeber 18, 2009.  I was participating in a vigil outside the abortuary that was organized by Life Guard of La Plata, a Catholic non-profit organization that helps mothers in crisis pregnancies.  During this vigil, pro-lifers told me about Dr. Grossman.

I already knew what abortionists do, and I was saddened to see approximately six young ladies escorted in to participate in the killing of their children.   What I wasn't ready for was to learn what Dr. Grossman did on the other days when he wasn't killing children. 

Dr. Grossman worked, and still works at a Catholic hospital, Mercy Regional Medical Center, as a staff physician with full medical privileges!

Here is a man that kills children once a week, and he is employed by a hospital that is supposed to share my belief that what he does is murder?  What in the world was going on?  I immediately fired off an email to my Bishops

Despite repeated entreaties to my Bishops, I have not learned of any action being taken to end this scandalous situation.  I have since learned that local pro-life activists (Catholic and Protestant) have been trying to get the Catholic church to step in and stop Dr. Grossman for at least three years!

It should be noted, that while I realize that it is scandalous to point out this ongoing situation within the Catholic church, it is a much more egregious scandal to let it continue unaddressed.

Dr. Grossman would not be able to financially maintain himself on what he earns killing children one day a week.  Does this not make Mercy Hospital in Durango and the Catholic Church a material facilitator to the killing?  In effect, the Catholic Church, Mercy Hospital, and the Catholic Health Initiatives (based in Denver) are subsidizing abortion services in the Four Corners area.

If that were not bad enough, and it is, Dr. Grossman openly promotes eugenics in his regular column for the local Durango newspaper, the Durango Herald in a column entitled Population Matters.

It seems that the Catholic church is not capable of putting a stop to Dr. Grossman's evil audacity.  The reason, according to local activists, is that the hospital and the church fear federal employement discrimination lawsuits.  There is, however, a valid basis to believe that this Catholic hospital would be within its right to fire a murderer such as Dr. Grossman, although it is more likely that the church would lose a lawsuit from Dr. Grossman.

When it comes down to it what makes a church like the Catholic church great is its claim to be the repository of the Truth, not the health of its bank accounts.

In an age when the Catholic church is sued on an almost daily basis, wouldn't it be refreshing if the church were sued for preventing child killing at its hospitals instead of for allowing children to be molested. 

I for one would welcome the fight.  In the meantime I will be helping activists in the Durango area protest, not only at the abortuary, but at the Catholic hospital that makes it possible for Dr. Grossman to kill children and still make a good living

109 posted on 05/31/2010 10:29:23 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
If the culture of death has its way we will all be targets.

Thread by me.

"Organ Donation Euthanasia": A Dangerous Proposal

Should we adopt euthanasia to maximize our supply of available organs for transplantation?

For several decades transplant medicine has suffered from a critical shortfall in the supply of organs needed for patients with organ failure.  As a result thousands of patients die each year on waiting lists.  Presently there are over 100,000 patients awaiting donor organs in the U.S.; in 2007 alone, 18 patients per day died waiting for deceased donor organs.  The problem has given rise to significant milestones in end-of-life medicine.  For example, the shift in the 1960s from diagnosing human death in terms of the cessation of heart and lung function (cardio-pulmonary death) to neurological criteria (whole brain death) was motivated by a desire to preserve more transplantable organs.  Another idea that’s been debated over the years is “organ conscription.”  This very month, lawmakers in New York introduced an “opt out” organ conscription bill that would presume that all patients are organ donors unless they explicitly opt out on their driver’s license. [1]  Those of us whose organs are more or less healthy may not appreciate the distress that patients and their families feel knowing that their lives could be saved if only their names reach the top of the wait list.

The most recent contribution to this ongoing conversation was recently published in the prestigious journal Bioethics. [2]  Two medical ethicists from Oxford University, Julian Savulescu (you might recall his name from my recent piece on “Transhumanism”) and Dominic Wilkinson, argue that euthanasia should be used to maximize the number and quality of organs for transplantation.  Patients should be allowed to designate on their end-of-life documents their desire to donate their organs through a process that the authors call Organ Donation Euthanasia or ODE.  They carefully qualify the criteria for ODE eligibility: patients must be in intensive care and dependent on life support; they must have planned for the withdrawal of life support if their prognosis is poor; their condition is such that they will die anyway within a short time of the removal of life support; and they must explicitly consent to ODE.  If these conditions are met, doctors may put them under general anesthesia and harvest their organs.  But intentionally removing vital organs from a living patient, especially the heart, will ordinarily kill the patient.  So the procedure is euthanasia.  The authors identify four benefits to be gained by introducing ODE into transplant medicine: 1) patient autonomy is maximized; 2) patients are provided the widest possible scope to donate their organs; 3) the supply of viable organs for transplantation is significantly increased; and 4) patients are less likely to suffer (because of the general anesthesia) than they would be through the ordinary withdrawal of life support. 

The authors assess these benefits in the light of the concept of a “Pareto improvement,” a principle used in economics to determine whether we have strong reasons to prefer some alternative.  The principle—which the authors call “one of the most basic principles of rationality”—states that some proposed alternative constitutes a Pareto improvement if as a result of its implementation at least one person is better off while no person is left worse off.   It follows that if some state of affairs constitutes a Pareto improvement, then we have strong reasons to adopt that alternative.

Savulescu and Wilkinson confidently assert that ODE for eligible patients constitutes a Pareto improvement.  It is superior to the current practice of removing life support, waiting until patients die, and then harvesting their organs (called donation after cardiac death, or DCD); both in the case of DCD and ODE a patient dies, but with ODE “more lives are able to be saved” because more useful organs can be harvested from a living human being than from a corpse.

I went into their complicated concept of a Pareto improvement so you (our readers) might appreciate the next thing the authors say in their essay.  It illustrates with startling clarity the deficiency of the utilitarian reasoning they use to justify ODE.  They say: “ODE might not be regarded as a Pareto improvement if the killing of the patient were regarded as a moral harm or a rights violation.  However, it is difficult to see why a patient is morally harmed or has their rights violated if they are actively killed, compared with a state of affairs where they die as a result of treatment withdrawal, assuming that they have consented to either.”  For our authors, and for utilitarians generally, moral harm is calculated exclusively as a function of measurable outcomes.  If death promises to follow upon each of two alternatives, and one alternative promises in addition to death some measurable benefit, then—presuming informed consent in relation to both—that alternative presumptively is rationally superior.  After all D + B (where D equals guaranteed and consented-to death and B some measurable benefit) must be superior to D alone.

Their argument that ODE causes no moral harm to patients—and by implication to anyone else—is weak, even by utilitarian standards.  Does not the doctor who kills his patient harm himself?  Forbidding practitioners under any circumstance to kill their patients imposes a salutary restraint upon everyone involved in the delivery of health care.  It says that human life is a unique good whose respect deserves every possible safeguard.  Is not the erosion of one’s respect for the inviolability of the good of life a serious harm?  Isn’t it likely that having consented to the killing of patients for the sake of promised benefits, a practitioner will begin to prefer Organ Donation Euthanasia to donation governed by the traditional dead donor rule?  And will not the profession generally begin to favor euthanasia as the ‘optimal alternative’ for maximizing the acquisition of organs?  Does not acceptance of ODE violate the time-honored principle of medical ethics, “Do No Harm?” Who can calculate the long-term harm to the medical profession and to patients as our community’s collective inhibition against doctors killing patients is relaxed ‘in this one case’?  And as our community grows comfortable with ODE, will not this erode our moral inhibitions against other forms of euthanasia?  Pareto improvements soon will be discovered in the simple killing of patients at their autonomous requests.  The authors have already told us they believe that maximizing patient autonomy by permitting them to choose ODE is itself a great good.  The ODE patient then, according to the authors’ own “rational principle,” is better off for having his autonomous will respected than if his request is denied; and his death, since it followed from patient autonomy, could hardly be seen to leave him worse off. 

Will not harms also come to families and communities as conflicts arise between patients who desire ODE and spouses, children, siblings and in-laws who reasonably judge that killing, even for a good end, is wrong?  Will not violence be done to the moral sensibilities of, say, a child, as her parent’s euthanasia is forced upon her?  How should the community respond?  “Get over it, honey.  Can’t you see that assisted-suicide in this case is okay!”  Do not our authors consider the cultural divisiveness that their proposal will certainly precipitate a harm at least worth acknowledging?  The tectonic shift that took place in the West’s ethical sensibilities when abortion become legal has inflicted an irreconcilable division on our community.  In the U.S., States are blue or red according to whether or not the region supports killing the unborn, and the moral identity of our political parties are largely defined by their abortion platform.  Killing for organs will be just one more knife slicing deeper into this cultural divide.  Moreover, the Catholic Church runs over 270 hospitals in the US, a considerable percent of the overall medical care in the country.  Those hospitals will refuse to honor an advanced directive that orders ODE.  This means that the Savulescu proposal promises to precipitate profound dysfunction in the delivery of health care, at least in the US.  Finally, for the hundreds of millions of persons who believe that the norm against killing is backed not only by reason, but by divine sanction, there is to consider also the grave spiritual harm to the patient, the patient’s killer, and all who wrongfully support the killing.

The authors’ judgment that no one will be morally harmed by introducing euthanasia into transplant medicine is profoundly naïve.  The erosion of the moral sensibilities against killing of doctors, the medical profession and the wider community; the deepening division sown into the fabric of our community; the dysfunction introduced into the delivery of healthcare, all testify against their proposal.

The fact that a reputable journal such as Bioethics would feature an article promoting ODE illustrates how deeply our moral sensibilities against killing have already eroded.  They eroded as a result of past proposals to make ‘exceptions’ to the norm against killing in the delivery of health care.  Travelling further down this same road by sanctioning ODE may profit us in the short run by gaining us a few extra organs to transplant; but the moral cost to our community will be very dear indeed.

[1] See discussion in the New York Times from May 2, 2010;

[2] See their essay “Should We Allow Organ Donation Euthanasia?” at:,ftx_abs?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

110 posted on 05/31/2010 10:31:52 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I was also surprised how strongly Laura Bush has come out in favor of abortion.

111 posted on 05/31/2010 11:09:46 AM PDT by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Dante3

It didn’t surprise me at all.

112 posted on 05/31/2010 11:10:51 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Thanks for the ping!

113 posted on 05/31/2010 9:45:49 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
Big Murder is about to make infanticide even more dangerous.

Thread by me.

Former Planned Parenthood Director: Stop New, Risky Telemed Abortion Process Note: Abby Johnson of College Station, Texas, is a former clinic director in the Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas affiliate. After a conversion experience from witnessing an abortion procedure by ultrasound, she resigned and now works in the pro-life movement.

Abortion is a risky business. It’s risky for the unborn child, of course. But there’s also risk for the woman who undergoes the procedure, and that fact is often ignored by those who promote — and profit from — abortion.

Those risks could increase substantially under a new scheme Planned Parenthood has developed for expanding abortion to areas that are not served by its current network of surgical abortion facilities. And Planned Parenthood is certain to downplay these risks because abortion is the organization’s biggest moneymaker.

I worked for eight years at Planned Parenthood, and I know that medical abortions — abortions done through the abortion pill, RU-486 — are far from risk-free. This pill is used through nine weeks of pregnancy to abort a child without surgery.

According to RU-486’s own website, at least six women in the United States have died in the past five years from using the abortion pill. Because the abortion pill can cause severe side effects, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has developed regulations for its use. One of the rules is that the pill can be administered only by a doctor.

Planned Parenthood of the Heartlands (Greater Iowa) dispenses RU-486 to hundreds, if not thousands, of women every year. However, this affiliate has previously been unable to distribute the abortion pill at its rural clinics, some of which are as much as 120 miles from a hospital or emergency care facility, because there is no doctor available.

Their answer is “telemedicine,” where a doctor at a remote location conducts patient consultations over the Internet. This scheme completely bypasses the foundational in-person, doctor-patient relationship that is necessary for real health care.

Planned Parenthood stands to make enormous profits if this type of “telemed” abortion is successful.

This method is not being done in other parts of the country – yet. But Planned Parenthood intends to expand the use of this procedure.

Two years ago, I went to a National Abortion Federation meeting and listened to a nurse from Planned Parenthood of the Heartland brag about the new telemed abortion method. He said it would revolutionize the way medical abortions were conducted, starting in Iowa and then expanding throughout the nation.

Last week, at an event in Cedar Rapids, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards spoke glowingly of the telemed abortions and indicated hopes to roll out the system nationwide over the next five years.

Even when I was a 2008 Planned Parenthood “employee of the year,” I thought this system sounded risky.

Since many of Planned Parenthood’s facilities in Iowa are in rural areas, it’s downright scary to think of what could happen to any woman who suffers complications from RU-486.

The Iowa Board of Medicine and the FDA must take immediate action to ensure that the dangerous telemed abortions are stopped. Iowans should demand that their elected officials take swift action to strip all taxpayer funding from Planned Parenthood.

114 posted on 06/06/2010 9:57:21 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
Hopefully the Black community in Georgia will actually get the message.

Thread by markomalley.

Georgia pro-life groups launch ‘Black and Unwanted’ billboard campaign

.- A pro-life billboard campaign called “Black and Unwanted” has been launched in Georgia to increase awareness of the “devastating” impact of abortion on Georgia’s black community and to highlight the need for more adoptions.

The new campaign is co-sponsored by Georgia Right to Life and the Radiance Foundation.

The billboard shows a teary-eyed young black child’s face on a dark black background. The words “Black & Unwanted” run across the top of the billboard while the website address is displayed at its base.

Over 60 billboards have been placed in Augusta, Macon and Savannah, Georgia Right to Life reports. The pro-life group says that Georgia is among the leading states in the number of reported abortions performed on black women, with 18,901 in 2008 alone.

"This project is going to continue as long as women are being lied to and the killing of black children is seen as our 'best' way to end poverty,” explained Catherine Davis, Director of Minority Outreach for Georgia Right to Life. “Women need to know all their options and expose the lies that Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers have been spreading for years."

"Our children are our heritage, our strength and the abortion community has reduced our legacy to the status of a parasite, something to be eliminated rather than cherished,” she continued, predicting that the campaign will begin to restore value to black children in Georgia and the U.S. as a whole.

The billboard was created by Ryan Bomberger, co-founder of the Radiance Foundation. He said the emphasis of the campaign on black Americans and abortion is that Centers for Disease Control figures show African-Americans have abortions at three times the rate of white women and twice the rate of all other races combined.

"Abortion is being used as birth control and increasingly encouraged by groups like Planned Parenthood,” he commented.

According to Bomberger, in 2008 Planned Parenthood “aborted 65 children for every 1 client they referred for adoption; that's 305,310 abortions to 4,912 adoption referrals."

The website of the campaign,, provides more information as well as professionally made videos.

115 posted on 06/06/2010 10:00:04 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
This is simply an amazing story!

Thread by markomalley.

The incredible moment a deaf baby hears his mother's voice for the very first time

Gurgling in a mix of wonder and joy, this is the incredible moment a child hears his mother's voice for the first time.

Eight-month-old Jonathan was born deaf and had cochlear implants put into his ears so he could hear.

His father filmed the tear-jerking moment they were turned on for the first time, capturing the amazement in the boy's face as he heard his mother's voice saying his name.

Video at link

Seconds before the implant is turned on, Jonathan rests peacefully in his mother's arms

Seconds before the implant is turned on, Jonathan rests peacefully in his mother's arms

The implant is turned on - and Jonathan, hearing his mother's voice for the first time, turns to her, his dummy dropping from his mouth as it opens in amazement

The implant is turned on - and Jonathan, hearing his mother's voice for the first time, turns to her, his dummy dropping from his mouth as it opens in amazement.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

116 posted on 06/06/2010 10:02:56 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
The way these people rationalize murder is beyond the pale.

Thread by me.

Gary Coleman's Wife Mentions Terri Schiavo in Comments About Pulling Plug

Los Angeles, CA ( -- Gary Coleman's ex-wife said in a new interview that she pulled the plug on the actor last week because she didn't want him ending up like Terri Schiavo. The comments have sparked an outcry from pro-life advocates, who are also upset by continued mainstream media misreporting on Terri.

Shannon Price told TMZ in a video interview the day after Coleman's death,
"[The doctors] said even if they did take a chunk out of his brain, he would not be the same. He would be basically like Muhammed Ali."

"Be in my situation. I mean, look what happened with Terri Schiavo. I always think of her case, always, when it comes to this. Gary was gone," Price added. "And he would have died sooner or later anyway from that."

She told TMZ, "I don't want people to be so hard on me, thinking I had to pull the plug too early. He wouldn't have made it anyway. His heart would have just given out. I don't want people to sit there and think I'm a b----, and that I didn't care about him."

After citing Price's quotes to TMZ, the New York Daily News "reported" that "Schiavo, of Florida, languished in a coma for years before her husband won a drawn-out court battle to pull the plug."

But pro-life blogger Jill Stanek says that's not true, because Terri was never on life support -- she merely had assistance eating and drinking.

"For the gazillionth time, Terri Schiavo was not brain dead when a FL judge ordered her dehydrated and starved to death in 2005," Stanek said.

She added, "Oxygen deprivation left Terri mentally disabled, but she was responsive, particularly to family. There was no correlation between Terri's condition and actor Gary Coleman's apparently unresponsive condition, although even that is unclear."

"In this story we have a ready example demonstrating how the media always has and continues to get Terri's condition wrong," Stanek responded, saying the Daily News story is "absolutely false."

"We also see demonstrated how one should be very careful about who one decides to hand over a power of attorney," Stanek adds about Price's decision.

117 posted on 06/06/2010 10:05:13 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Thanks for the ping!

118 posted on 06/06/2010 10:08:33 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
Dr. Mark Mostert and Wesley J. Smith give is a glimpse into the horror that accompanies legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Two threads by me.

Dr. Mark Mostert: Dignitas - Kill Them All

The Swiss death clinic, Dignitas, is in the news again.

You’ll recall that Dignitas has gained notoriety as a fee-for-service killing venue for those who wish to die via assisted suicide. Dignitas has been most exposed by high-profile visits from UK citizens who travelled to the clinic to die because in the UK assisted suicide is illegal, and allows for the prosecution (at least on paper) of those who help people kill themselves.

However, there’s a very ugly underbelly to all the spin that Dignitas is a haven of care and a celebration of human autonomy.

There have been reports of dingy and dirty surroundings, less than dignified treatment of those who come to be killed both before and after they die, and the nagging fact that this is all offered at a rather exorbitant fee.

It gets worse. Several months ago hundreds of urns with the cremated remains of Dignitas’ victims were discovered dumped in Lake Geneva. This matter is currently under investigation.

Dignitas is again in the news, and I’m not sure why this latest issue so surprises the media, because Dignitas is doing exactly what it has always said it was doing: Helping anyone who wants to to kick the bucket.

The latest flap involves Dignitas’ providing a suicide kit to a 39 year-old Spanish man with severe psychological problems. From London's Daily Mail:

Swiss suicide clinic Dignitas is under investigation over claims that it ignored a patient's distressed mental condition to give him drugs to end his own life. . . . But now details have emerged of a patient who was allegedly given a DIY suicide kit prescribed by a Zurich gynaeologist despite suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. . . . But a Dignitas report on the 39-year-old Spanish man's mental state was a few lines that barely covered half a page of A4 paper, say local media reports on the death.


Or maybe not.

Here’s why: All the chatter about “transparency,” policies to “protect,” rigid controls to ensure that no “mistakes” are made is all smoke and mirrors on the way to the only goal the pro-death crowd have always wanted: Assisted suicide and euthanasia on demand and available for anyone, anywhere, at any time.

Don’t take my word for it, take those of Dignitas’ owner Minelli:

'Every person in Europe has the right to choose to die, even if they are not terminally ill.'



Legalizing Euthanasia in Belgium Unleashes Nurses to Do Doctor-Ordered Non Voluntary Killing

Belgium has followed the Netherlands in jumping off a vertical moral cliff by embracing legalized euthanasia.  The awful consequences that I predicted are now coming to pass; a steady increase in the number of cases, inadequate reporting, and a large percentage of non voluntary euthanasia deaths.  Thus, I am anything but surprised by the study I analyze below, which echoes an earlier one reported here at SHS, that nearly as many Belgian euthanasia killings are non voluntary as of those that are voluntary (the concept of “voluntary” in this context being highly problematic, but let’s not deal with that here).

Why might that be? Euthanasia consciousness rests on two intellectual pillers–that killing is an acceptable answer to human suffering, and radical individualism in which we all own our bodies and have the absolute right to do what we wish with it, including make it dead.   But interestingly, the latter idea–often reduced to that most effective of all soundbites, “choice”–turns out to be far less robust than the acceptance of active killing as a proper method of ending suffering.  In other words, once a society accepts killing as the answer to suffering, the request element becomes increasingly less important as doctors assume they are doing what is best for the patient by extinguishing their lives.

This has been the case in the Netherlands for for decades.  Amazingly, the phenomenon of “terminations without request or consent” is even worse in Flanders, Belgium.  In the present survey of nurses, not only were nearly as many patients euthanized without no request–120 in this survey–as those who asked to die–128 in this survey–but often doctors have nurses do the dirty work–and they aren’t supposed to engage in euthanasia at all.  From a study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (download the PDF to see whole article):

Second, we wonder why nurses more often administered the life-ending drugs in cases without an explicit patient request than in cases of euthanasia. Perhaps nurses took a more active role out of concern for frailer patients who could no longer communicate, or for very old patients because physicians are more reluctant to give assistance in dying when dealing with these patients.30 Further, in cases of euthanasia, communication between the physician and the patient is common.

When the patient can no longer communicate, nurses are, by the nature of their work, more directly confronted with the patient’s suffering and may therefore wish to take a more active role in life-ending acts.  We also have to consider that the administration of life-ending drugs without the patient’s explicit request may have included situations of terminal sedation or an increase in pain alleviation, in which the delegation by physicians to nurses to administer the drugs is considered common practice. Finally, although about half of the nurses’ reports indicated that there was no explicit request from the patient, it should be stated that the physicians and nurses probably acted according to the patient’s wishes.

Not if they weren’t asked!  This goes beyond terminal non judgmentalism to actively justifying illegal acts, and proves that once the euthanasia monster is let out of its cage, the “guidelines” and “safeguards” become less protective than wet tissue paper, not only in the country where euthanasia occurs, but among professional studies of the practices.

And catch this bland conclusion:

By administering life-ending drugs at the physician’s request in some cases of euthanasia, and even more so in cases without an explicit request from the patient, the nurses in our study operated beyond the legal margins of their profession. Future research should closely monitor and examine the involvement of nurses in these practices nationally and internationally to allow comparisons between countries with and without euthanasia legislation.

Talk about missing the obvious point.  Here’s the proper summary:  “This  study shows that euthanasia poisons everything it touches. Legal guidelines don’t protect vulnerable patients from abuse once euthanasia is legalized. Moreover,  nurses are particularly susceptible to being caught up in acts that are illegal when doctors, who many not wish to take the final life-ending act themselves, order them to carry out the termination.  We also note that this study demonstrates that once killing becomes part of the medical armamentarium, it leads directly to patient abuse and medical criminality.  This study highlights a reason why legalizing euthanasia is bad ethics and ever worse public policy.”

119 posted on 06/06/2010 10:09:02 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Too many people get worked up about somebody making a slur or a nasty comment. Yet some of these same people have nothing to say regarding the horrific cases you reported.

I do not get upset if somebody calls me a name. But reading about Don Holley infuriated me. (also discussed in "No comfort for those who care" by Rebecca Hagelin, The Washington Times, June 7, 20010) She concludes:

". . . we can no longer assume that hospitals are places of healing and help. . . . There is an evil sweeping our nation that is using very clever, compasionate-sounding language to hasten the deaths of people who are inconvenient or who, the believe, don't contribute to society."

120 posted on 06/07/2010 8:02:56 AM PDT by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I guess she doesn’t realise that SHE is ‘just going to die anyway’ too.

I am afraid that many, many people think this way. Our state has legalized what they call, “death with dignity”...meaning if you choose to fight your cancer, you have NO dignity, I guess.

My mother in law has many health problems, and I am constantly afraid that one day her husband will legally kill her, if she gets to be too much trouble for him! He is a great believer in “sparing misery” to his animals and to people. Actually, he is sparing himself, masking it as compassion.

121 posted on 06/07/2010 12:25:31 PM PDT by tuckrdout ( A fool vents all his feelings, but a wise man holds them back. Prov.29:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
Kagan is 100% in favor of the culture of death.

Thread by Clintonfatigued.

Kagan Opposed Nationwide Ban on Assisted Suicide, Papers Show

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan as an aide to former President Bill Clinton said that federal legislation criminalizing doctor-assisted suicide was a “fairly terrible idea,” according to newly disclosed documents.

Kagan’s hand-written note was included among 46,500 pages of records the William J. Clinton Presidential Library released yesterday. The documents shed new light on Kagan’s views on social issues including affirmative action, gun control and cloning.

The assisted-suicide note was prompted by Oregon’s 1997 enactment of a right-to-die law, which stirred an ultimately unsuccessful move by congressional Republicans to override the statute with a federal ban. In her note, after suggesting the possibility of Clinton backing such a law, Kagan immediately shot down the idea.

“This is a fairly terrible idea, but I know Begala likes it,” she said in the 1998 note, referring to Clinton adviser Paul Begala.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

122 posted on 06/13/2010 10:20:28 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
Peter Singer is absolutely gleeful about the prospect of killing humanity.

Threads by reaganaut1 and me.

Should This Be the Last Generation? (asks Peter Singer)


Most thoughtful people are extremely concerned about climate change. Some stop eating meat, or flying abroad on vacation, in order to reduce their carbon footprint. But the people who will be most severely harmed by climate change have not yet been conceived. If there were to be no future generations, there would be much less for us to feel to guilty about.

So why don’t we make ourselves the Last Generation on Earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!

Of course, it would be impossible to get agreement on universal sterilization, but just imagine that we could. Then is there anything wrong with this scenario? Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend it, because it makes us better off — for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations — and it doesn’t make anyone worse off, because there won’t be anyone else to be worse off.

Is a world with people in it better than one without? Put aside what we do to other species — that’s a different issue. Let’s assume that the choice is between a world like ours and one with no sentient beings in it at all. And assume, too — here we have to get fictitious, as philosophers often do — that if we choose to bring about the world with no sentient beings at all, everyone will agree to do that. No one’s rights will be violated — at least, not the rights of any existing people. Can non-existent people have a right to come into existence?

(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Princeton Philosopher: ‘Why Not Sterilize the Human Race and Party into Extinction?’

NEW YORK, June 8, 2010 ( – Princeton philosopher Peter Singer one of the world’s foremost contemporary utilitarian philosophers infamous for his advocacy of infanticide, would like individuals to consider this question: would sterilizing the human race to spare future generations the pain of existence be a good idea?

In a blog post for the New York Times entitled “Should this be the last generation?” Singer discusses in glowing terms the thought of South African philosopher David Benatar. Singer calls Benator the “author of a fine book with an arresting title: ‘Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.’”

“To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have a good life is not to benefit him or her,” explains Singer.

Both Singer and Benatar both believe that human beings do not have inherent dignity. Singer, the Princeton Chair of Bioethics, has gained notoriety for asserting that infanticide is justifiable, especially for disabled infants, because they lack self-awareness, which he asserts is a requirement for personhood.

A key difference, however, between Singer and Benatar, an existential nihilist who chairs the Department of Philosophy at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, is that Singer believes life could be worth living in certain conditions. But Benatar flat out rejects existence as good, and the still-living author discusses that view in his controversial book.

Singer explains Benatar’s antinatalist philosophy, which bases its moral framework by weighing the consequences of existence, in this way: “everyone will suffer to some extent, and if our species continues to reproduce, we can be sure that some future children will suffer severely. Hence continued reproduction will harm some children severely, and benefit none.”

Singer then invites readers to engage in a thought experiment: “So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!”

“Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend [this scenario], because it makes us better off — for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations — and it doesn’t make anyone worse off, because there won’t be anyone else to be worse off,” he continued.

Singer distances himself from Benatar’s conclusions, however, and says, “I do think it would be wrong to choose the non-sentient universe.” Nevertheless, he said that for the human race to continue justifying reproducing itself over the next two centuries, individuals should ask themselves the hard questions of, “Is life worth living? Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?”

Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith, a longtime critic of Singer’s work, responded to Singer’s recent article, saying, “This is nihilism on stilts and it is polluting the West’s self confidence and belief in universal human equality like the BP oil well is polluting the Caribbean.

“Only the resulting mess isn’t measured in polluted beaches and dead birds, but existential despair that destroys human lives.”

“Under the influence of anti-human advocates like Peter Singer, we have gone in the West from seeking to ‘secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity,’ to seriously questioning whether there should be any posterity at all,” Smith wrote on his blog. “This is not healthy. But it is the natural consequence of rejecting human exceptionalism.”

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

123 posted on 06/13/2010 10:24:53 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
The selfishness of this is repulsive.

Two threads by me.

80 British IVF Babies Aborted per Year

LONDON, June 7, 2010 ( – Figures released under Britain’s Freedom of Information Act show that an average of 80 children conceived by in vitro fertilization (IVF) and other artificial means of artificial procreation, are being aborted each year in England and Wales. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the government body that regulates artificial reproduction practices, has revealed that some of those aborted were conceived by IVF treatments funded by the country’s tax-funded medical system, the National Health Service (NHS).

Former conservative MP Ann Widdecombe said that the figures showed children are being treated like “designer goods.”

“If the law was applied properly, people wouldn't be able to get an abortion just because they changed their minds,” Widdecombe said.

The figures show that about half of the abortions are performed out for mothers aged between 18 and 34, the age at which it is easier for women to conceive and carry children to term. The figures included those children aborted for “selective reduction,” in which one or more children are killed when too many embryos have survived implantation in the womb.

Prof. Bill Ledger, a member of the HFEA, said, “I had no idea there were so many post-IVF abortions and each one is a tragedy.”

IVF and other artificial means of procreation have been in use in Britain since the technique was pioneered with the birth of Louise Brown, touted in the media as the world’s “first” “test-tube baby,” in 1978. Since then, Britain has led the world in developing the new reproductive technologies, including cloning and genetic manipulation of embryos. The technologies have grown directly out of IVF research.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act was passed in 1990. By 1997, 1 in 80 children (1.2%) born in Britain was the result of IVF treatment.


R. Albert Mohler, Jr.: After IVF, Abortion? What Does This Say?

Just when you think that every imaginable dimension of the great tragedy of abortion has come to light, along comes a report that will stop you dead in your tracks. One of the most respected British newspapers has just revealed that approximately 80 abortion are performed in the UK each year, terminating pregnancies that came about by IVF treatments.
That’s right - on average, 80 British women each year abort their babies after having conceived them through the ordeal of IVF treatments. The British government, along with the British public, seems to be outraged at this discovery, made possible through the nation’s freedom of information rules. But, what is the basis of the outrage?

The Times [London] reported on June 6, 2010 that the discovery has shocked many in the medical community, but not all who are abortion providers. Professor Bill Ledger, a member of Britain’s Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, pointed to the obvious: “These women can’t be surprised to be pregnant; you can’t have an IVF pregnancy by accident.”

Added to the scandal is the case that these abortions are classified as driven by “social” reasons. In other words, there is no medical issue at stake here. These are successful and healthy pregnancies that were sought by these women, even to the extent of seeking IVF treatments. Women who had sought such abortions after IVF told The Times that they decided after becoming pregnant that they just did not want to have the baby after all, that they terminated the relationship with their partner, or that the realization of impending motherhood was just too much.

Though there is a sense of outrage on the part of many in the public, it appears that much of the concern is financial, rather than moral. In its coverage of the scandal, The Times referred to the fact that “young women are having abortions on the NHS (National Health Service) after expensive IVF treatment.” In other words, the scandal is implied to be the waste of funds and the misuse of expensive and specialized high-tech fertility treatments.

Some observers responded to the report with no outrage at all. Ann Furedi, a prominent defender of abortion rights, told The Times, “Sometimes, it is only when women get pregnant that they can allow themselves to ask the question about whether it is really what they want.”

Come again? Ann Furedi appears to be saying that women need not even ask themselves if they really want to be mothers until they are actually pregnant. That assertion is about as morally shocking as can be imagined. Ms. Furedi also told the paper that she believes every abortion doctor sees at least one woman a year who seeks abortion after becoming pregnant through IVF technology.

Ann Widdecombe, a former Member of Parliament, said that women who abort after IVF treatments are treating babies as “designer goods.” On the other hand, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority insisted that it does not regulate abortions and sought to separate the IVF issue from the abortions in these cases. In an expression of classic bureaucratic banality, the HFEA said, “All patients who undergo IVF are assessed, as are the implications for any child that might be born, in advance of the decision to treat.”

Well, the “implications” for a significant number of these children are that they are killed in their mothers’ wombs.

What does this new scandal say about the human condition? In the first place, it tells us that we are turning ourselves into unabashed idolaters of the self. We are witnessing the elevation of personal autonomy, personal happiness, and personal fulfillment to levels that can only be described as idolatry. These women are seeking abortions just because they have decided they really do not want to be pregnant after all. Their concern is the solitary self above all.

Second, this scandal reminds us that the real issue here is the killing of innocent human life, and not the waste of expensive fertility treatments. The response to this report in some quarters is primarily about money, and not about the sanctity of human life. This fact alone should serve as a warning to us all.

Third, we must remember in light of this scandal that human dignity does not rest in any sense upon the circumstances of conception, but on the fact that every human being ever conceived is made in God’s image and is a life that is sacred and to be honored, protected, welcomed, and cherished. There are all too many women who conceive by natural means, only to make the decision to abort on the same basis as those described in this report. The scandal of the abortions sought after IVF treatments throws a dramatic light on the scandal of abortion itself. This new scandal just serves to make the murderous reality of abortion even more plain to see.

Americans should take note - we can be virtually assured that this scandal is present in this nation to a degree exceeding even what has been revealed in Britain. This nation lacks some of the protections and regulations found even in Britain. The United States is, as some foreign observers have noted, the “wild, wild West” of fertility treatments. Add to that fact the reality that women in the U.S. can demand an abortion for any reason or for no stated reason at all.

One might think that the most welcome place in the world for an unborn child would be the womb of a mother who would be so intent on getting pregnant that she would seek and undergo IVF fertility treatment. It turns out that in a significant number of cases, that assumption is proved wrong. How do we take the measure of that tragedy?

124 posted on 06/13/2010 10:27:46 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

she’s dead Jim

125 posted on 06/13/2010 10:28:47 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 . Ostracize Democrats. There can be no Democrat friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: julieee; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
So much for "safe and legal and rare".

Thread by julieee.

Teenager Does Self-Abortion With Pencil, Boyfriend Buries Baby's Body

Teenager Does Self-Abortion With Pencil, Boyfriend Buries Baby's Body

Lehigh, PA ( -- A 13-year-old Pennsylvania girl reportedly conducted a self-abortion using a lead pencil after her much-old boyfriend subjected her to statutory rape. The 30-year-old boyfriend, officials say, then buried the body of the dead unborn child after the abortion was completed.

126 posted on 06/13/2010 10:30:42 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
I would love to see these ads in the United States.

Thread by me.

Unborn Baby Jesus Poster Campaign Launched by Protestant Consortium

LONDON, June 9, 2010 ( – As Marie Stopes abortion adverts continue to air this month on Britain’s Channel 4, a poster campaign featuring a picture of the unborn Christ child is being launched by a Protestant group to promote the “divinity and humanity of Christ.”

Advertising executives from the Church of England, Methodist, United Reformed and Baptist churches have banded together to produce the campaign in time for Christmas, saying, “There is no doubt that it will capture people's attention, generate headlines and create countless conversations about the true meaning of Christmas.”

The ads feature a composite of ultrasound pictures of a baby with the addition of a halo. The caption reads, “He’s on His way. Christmas starts with Christ.”

The campaign by the group ChurchAds.Net was inspired by a new custom in which parents give ultrasound photos of their unborn children to family and friends.

“Our new Ultrasound Jesus poster (pictured left) uses this convention to place the birth of Christ in an ultra-contemporary context,” the group said. hopes to reach as many as 40 million people by displaying the poster ads on 2010 bus shelters around the country. The posters will be supplemented by radio commercials that are to be aired on 200 stations.

John Smeaton, the director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, told the Times, “This advertisement sends a powerful message to everyone in Britain where 570 babies are killed every day in the womb, 365 days a year, under the Abortion Act. Whenever we kill an unborn child in an abortion, we are killing Jesus.”

“I just hope and pray that this poster campaign has the effect of saving many lives. Let's promote it in every way we can,” he added.
Last month Telegraph columnist Gerald Warner said that with the airing of the Marie Stopes ads, there was no longer any excuse to forbid pro-life organisations from running their own TV ad campaigns showing the realities of abortion.

Permission from the Advertising Standards Authority for the Marie Stopes adverts, Warner said, “removes the last argument against pro-life organisations being allowed to broadcast images demonstrating the realities of abortion.

“The pro-abortion lobby is pleading the need for openness about abortion: fair enough, they should be taken at their word.”

Warner noted that in the past, television executives have censored election time broadcasts by the Pro-Life Alliance.

127 posted on 06/13/2010 10:32:43 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Nachum; raptor22; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
Any illusion that Crist was pro-life ended with Terri's murder.

Threads by Nachum and raptor22.

Crist takes down pro-life section on website

Hugging cherubic children, to win elections, used to be the norm, but not any more. Apparently, fewer babies mean a greater number of votes for certain politicians. In fact, Governor Charlie Crist, hoped to secure an open U.S. Senate seat in Florida by removing pro-life sentiments from his campaign website.

Newly minted Independent Charlie Crist has faith to believe that aborted babies could be the ticket that delivers him a hotly contested senate seat over conservative Republican rival, Marco Rubio and Democrat, Kendrick Meek.

Although conveniently pro-life for over a decade, Crist took down the sanctity of life section from his webpage. By doing so, Charlie sent a message of non-support for a controversial Florida bill that wants to provide the opportunity for women to see an ultrasound of their baby before deciding in favor of abortion.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Gov. Charlie Crist Vetoes Anti-Abortion Measure Requiring Ultrasound

TALLAHASSEE — Gov. Charlie Crist today vetoed a highly controversial bill that would have required women seeking abortions to pay for ultrasounds before undergoing the procedure, saying it would "violate a woman's right to privacy."

The veto sparked a firestorm of criticism from the Republican legislators, members of the governor's former party, who accused him of abandoning principle for political gain.

Crist, though, said that while people hold strong opinions on abortion, "personal views should not result in laws that unwisely expand the role of government and coerce people to obtain medical tests or procedures that are not medically necessary."

"This bill presents an inappropriate burden on women seeking to terminate a pregnancy," the governor wrote in his veto message, likely his final one as governor.

The bill (HB1143), which passed along party lines in the closing days of the spring legislative session, would have required ultrasounds before first-trimester abortions, when more than 90 percent of abortions occur. The state already requires ultrasounds before second- and third-trimester abortions.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

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

128 posted on 06/13/2010 10:39:19 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
Soon they will be saying that wanting to live lacks dignity.

Thread by me.

Dr. Mark Mostert: Final Exit Network Spin: It’s Not Killing, It’s Dignity

The Final Exit Network (FEN) is a radical pro-death group that counsels people and then helps them to kill themselves.

That’s why several of its members have been indicted by the Feds for their activities in Arizona and Georgia. Other investigations are ongoing.

No matter, FEN continues to spin the charges as unfair, harassing, and, well, un-American.

What twaddle.

The latest pro-death propaganda appeared in the Baltimore Sun a few days ago penned by Jerry Dicin, FEN’s president.

It’s a tour de force of manipulation, arrogance and outright dishonesty.

After noting that his FEN colleague Dr. Larry Egbert, is awaiting trial related to assisted killing in both Arizona and Georgia, Dicin launches into how Egbert was not complicit in murder, but was actually doing what doctors are supposed to do, and that this abominable behavior is a solution for people with Alzheimer’s Disease – both for the victims themselves and because it will spare their loved ones watching the progression of the disease:

By talking to these folks, Dr. Egbert was fulfilling his responsibility as a medical professional.

To understand why, consider the plight of those suffering from Alzheimer's [who] . . . can expect a slow, painful descent into advanced dementia . . .. Friends and family who are forced to witness their fall into oblivion suffer indescribably.

Given this bleak outlook, it's easy to see why some Alzheimer's patients choose to hasten their own death. It's also easy to see why Dr. Egbert was determined to help patients suffering from conditions like Alzheimer's and Lou Gehrig's disease make this difficult decision.

It is time for the world to recognize the right and the rationality for mentally competent adults in such circumstances to take their own lives.

Just in case you missed it: How many people diagnosed with Alzheimer’s can be judged mentally competent? Well, they can’t, but that’s of little consequence to Dicin – making people dead is the ultimate goal, no matter what. In truth, the pro-death crowd don’t care about mental competence – they just care about death on demand.

Dicin then trots out the old horror line of pain and suffering:

That's your mother screaming in that bed, dealing every day with some terrible disease like Lou Gehrig's. She can look forward to a body that can't move, speak or swallow food, a life of total dependency on others for every act of maintenance.

Well, what’s the evidence here? The truth is that very, very few people’s pain at the end of life cannot be controlled by good palliative care and pain management. No matter, it’s the horror that’s meant to goad people into killing themselves.

Solution? Why, the good folks at FEN, of course!!!

That's where my organization, Final Exit Network, comes in. We provide information and counsel to patients who approach us seeking to deliver themselves from torture and make informed choices. The impetus comes from within them; we do not "encourage" anyone. We go to great lengths to ensure that the person is capable of choosing rationally.

Oh yes, those rational Alzheimer’s guys!!

But the preliminary reports of the Fed undercover sting showed much more: FEN advocates not even asking for proof that the victim had a terminal disease (or any disease, for that matter), and the inconvenient fact that the undercover agent was assured that once the assisted killing had begun, his FEN “guide” would hold his hands tightly enough so that he couldn’t change his mind and rip the gas mask from his face.

Without coercion, lies, spin, propaganda, and a healthy dose of narcissism, the pro-death crowd won’t win.

Unless, by remaining silent, we let them.

129 posted on 06/13/2010 10:42:39 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: bert; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
she’s dead Jim

Are you referring to Terri?

Of course she's dead, she was MURDERED.

Jesus Christ was also murdered, would you prefer that people no longer talk about Him?

130 posted on 06/13/2010 10:49:09 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Thanks for the ping!

131 posted on 06/13/2010 10:49:38 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I thought trolls weren’t allowed on the Terri’s Dailies threads. I know some of the trolls and antifreepers who were properly dealt with on the infamous Bugzapper Thread have been allowed to return, but has it really gotten so bad that we’re expected to tolerate them on caucus threads?

132 posted on 06/13/2010 1:04:26 PM PDT by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb; Admin Moderator; Religion Moderator; Jim Robinson
but has it really gotten so bad that we’re expected to tolerate them on caucus threads?

The consensus seems to be that pro-life threads (including the Terri Dailies) threads can be a caucus if we choose to label them as such, but that most pro-life FReepers would prefer that they remain open.

Vanity About Possible Pro-Life Caucus

133 posted on 06/13/2010 1:19:53 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

My mistake. I thought Terri’s Dailies threads were caucus threads, and closed to comments by her enemies.

134 posted on 06/13/2010 1:25:28 PM PDT by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

“U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan as an aide to former President Bill Clinton said that federal legislation criminalizing doctor-assisted suicide was a “fairly terrible idea,” according to newly disclosed documents.”

Where’s this in the Constitution? Looks like we might have another activist justice, unless the Republicans filibuster successfully.

135 posted on 06/13/2010 2:17:35 PM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Sun

I don’t think the GOP plans to filibuster at all.

136 posted on 06/13/2010 2:23:09 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

The GOP needs to hear from us that we want LEADERS, who are not afraid to FIGHT!

137 posted on 06/13/2010 2:46:31 PM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee


138 posted on 06/14/2010 11:50:12 AM PDT by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: bert

With a stone cold heart like yours, I would argue that you speak of yourself.

139 posted on 06/14/2010 1:50:18 PM PDT by tuckrdout ( A fool vents all his feelings, but a wise man holds them back. Prov.29:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

“boyfriend”?? Ah, this man is a child predator; and should be in jail.

140 posted on 06/14/2010 1:52:31 PM PDT by tuckrdout ( A fool vents all his feelings, but a wise man holds them back. Prov.29:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Crist is creepy.

I feel discouraged. With the Gary Coleman case is another example that brings to mind Terri. I am outraged. he had a living will stating he wanted kept alive. His ex-wife knew it. Yet the hospital removed it after only ONE DAY. Now I heard on news that the hospital stated a family member's decision will override a will. Shannon was his ex-wife, the one who refused to help him when he fell and in a rush to remove his life support.. This should raise huge red flags. Yet police will not investigate.

Since when can an ex-spouse, one who might even be responsible for the patient's condition, be allowed to override a will?

141 posted on 06/15/2010 2:32:21 PM PDT by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
I saw part of this monster's CNN interview, he is a blight on humanity.

Thread by me.

Kevorkian: “The Single Worst Moment of my Life … Was the Moment I Was Born”

June 15, 2010 ( -- "The single worst moment of my life  . . . was the moment I was born." So says Dr. Jack Kevorkian in a recent interview with CNN.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, the journalist conducting the interview, confessed that the remark left him speechless – especially since Kevorkian offered the strange and macabre confession without any provocation or lead-up question.

Gutpa writes that, “Throughout the two-and-a-half hour interview, [Kevorkian] fluctuated wildly between being downright combative and hostile to being sweet and fatherly.”

The journalist also mentioned Kevorkian’s “crazed rants,” “often about the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, complete with a defense of James Madison and trashing of Thomas Jefferson.”

The interview is part of the lead-up to Kevorkian’s Thursday interview at 9 PM EST on Larry King Live.

Kevorkian or "Dr. Death" has helped approximately 130 people kill themselves.  He also spent 8 years in prison for the second-degree murder of Thomas Youk, who was in the final stages of Amytrophic Lateral Scelerosis at the time of his death. Kevorkian had given Youk the lethal injection himself, and, in a videotape of Youk's death, dared authorities to try to convict him. 

Kevorkian told Gutpa that he believes his case should have been heard by the Supreme Court, because the issue of assisted suicide is a constitutional issue. Everyone, says Kevorkian, should have the right to kill him or her self.   

"They just don't get it in Oregon, " he says. "Or in Washington state or Montana, the other states," where assisted suicide is currently legal.  Assisted suicide is only legal in these states if someone has a terminal illness.

"What difference does it make if someone is terminal?" he says. "We are all terminal." 

Five of Kevorkian's victims were found to be healthy after autopsies were performed. 

However, when it comes to himself, Kevorkian says that he is not ready to die. "I have purpose in my life and three missions," he said.

The first mission is to warn the human race of its “impending doom,” due to what Gunta labels a “culture of overabundance” that will lead to the “extinction” of the human race.

The second mission is to educate people about assisted suicide, or what Kevorkian calls “patholysis” – the destruction of suffering.

The third mission is “to convince the American public that their rights are infringed upon each and every day - and that the Ninth Amendment is not being upheld.”

The controversial physician’s strange ideas about freedom and the Ninth Amendment are nothing new. In a speech at the University of Florida in 2008, Kevorkian spoke of his desire for anyone to be allowed to do anything at all, denouncing every law as "an infraction of liberty.  Every law!" 

In that speech he had also said people had a right to smoke marijuana or carry cocaine if they wished.

142 posted on 06/27/2010 10:14:38 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
I guess this is some of the "transparency" that Zero promised.

Thread by NYer.

Biden Promises Kenya 'Money to Flow' if Pro-Abort Constitution Passes

NAIROBI, Kenya, June 18, 2010 ( - U.S. Vice President Joe Biden travelled to Kenya to personally urge the country to pass a new constitution that would legalize abortion - and to assure Kenyans that such a change would "allow money to flow" from foreign aid treasuries.

At the same time, a federal probe is attempting to determine whether the Obama Administration is violating federal law by using taxpayer money to lobby for the constitution, deeply controversial in Kenya in large part because of its abortion provisions.

"We are hopeful, Barack Obama is hopeful, I am hopeful that you will carry out these reforms to allow money to flow," Biden told a crowd of Kenyans, among whom President Obama is extremely popular and touted as a native son of their country.

A clause in the proposed constitution has received heavy criticism from religious leaders in Kenya for allowing abortion when a mother's "health" is endangered - a term that, as abortion advocates admitted at the Women Deliver conference in Washington, D.C. last week, "can be broadly interpreted when need be."

Asked about the abortion issue, Biden told Rev. Timothy Njoya not to “confuse that with the position of the US President, US Vice President and US Government," according to Kenya's Daily Nation.

Yet some are not so sure that such a line can be drawn. Last month, 3 U.S. congressmen with legal oversight jurisdiction over federal international funds launched a probe into whether the Obama administration is violating federal law by promoting the controversial constitution.

“The Obama Administration’s advocacy in support of Kenya’s proposed constitution may constitute a serious violation of the Siljander Amendment and, as such, may be subject to civil and criminal penalties under the Antideficiency Act," wrote Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ), Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) in a May 6 letter to Inspectors General of the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The Siljander Amendment of the State, Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, reads: “None of the funds made available under this Act may be used to lobby for or against abortion."

The lawmakers pointed out that the abortion issue is prominent in the public debate over the proposed document, and that the chairman of Kenya’s Committee of Experts on Constitutional Review identified abortion as "one of the four most contentious issues in the proposed constitution.”

Rep. Smith said that as much as $10 million in taxpayer funds may have been spent in support of the pro-abortion constitution as of May.

143 posted on 06/27/2010 10:18:15 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Nachum; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ..
It wasn't that long ago when such facilities were correctly called DEATH CAMPS.

Thread by Nachum.

Portland doctor plans house where terminally ill can kill themselves

A Northwest Portland psychiatrist who the state has reprimanded for wrongly prescribing drugs says he plans to open a facility in the city and charge fees to help patients end their lives under Oregon's Death with Dignity Act.

Stuart G. Weisberg has mailed invitations to local doctors and politicians inviting them to a July 21 "presentation" at the deluxe El Gaucho restaurant in downtown to unveil his new business, End of Life Consultants LLC.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

144 posted on 06/27/2010 10:21:56 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

ping to myself

145 posted on 06/27/2010 10:23:45 AM PDT by Citizen Soldier ("You care far too much what is written and said about you." Axelrod to Obama 2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; angelwings49; ...
Wesley J. Smith has said that this isn't really euthanasia and is the patient's right, but I disagree.

Thread by me.

German Court Legalizes Euthanasia

BERLIN, June 25, 2010 ( – In a surprise move, the Federal Court of Justice of Germany has legalized direct euthanasia, ruling that an attempted direct euthanasia of a comatose woman was not unlawful since she had given consent.

“The expressed wishes of the patient ... justified not only the end of treatment via the withholding of further nourishment but also the active step of ending or preventing the treatment she no longer wanted,” the court said.

The ruling in the case of “Erika K” overturns a previous conviction for manslaughter of a lawyer who advised the daughter of a comatose woman in her 70s to cut her mother’s feeding tube with a pair of scissors, after nursing home staff had refused to remove it.

A lower court acquitted the daughter of killing her mother because she had “mistakenly” followed her lawyer's advice. The lawyer, Wolfgang Putz, was convicted and given a nine month suspended sentence. The government prosecutor was asking the court for a stronger sentence.

Putz’s lawyer had argued that the use of a gastric tube is “forced treatment” that the daughter had a right to terminate according to the known will of her mother.

Although Chancellor Angela Merkel has previously stated that she opposes any form of assisted suicide, the decision was welcomed by her government. Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said, “In a difficult phase of life, wills by patients provide safety for patients, relatives, doctors and nurses.”

“The will freely formulated by a human being must be respected in all circumstances of life.”

In countries that have already legalized euthanasia, such “safeguards” as living wills are often cited by euthanasia campaigners as means of avoiding abuse of power by doctors and nurses. Nevertheless, reports from Belgium and the Netherlands are increasingly showing that patients are regularly being killed without any form of consent being given.

In May this year, a report published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that over 30 per cent of reported euthanasia cases in one region in Belgium were carried out without the consent of the patient.

In 2003, the Netherlands became the first country in the world after the downfall of the Nazi regime to legalize euthanasia. In the last two years, euthanasia cases there have seen a sudden rise, with an increase of 13 per cent in the last year following a sudden jump of 10 per cent in 2008. In 2005, one study estimated that cases of involuntary euthanasia, in which doctors do not follow the legal procedure to gain consent of the patient or family, account for about 550 deaths in the Netherlands each year.

Dr. Els Borst, the former Dutch health minister and deputy prime minister who guided the country’s euthanasia law through parliament, has lamented the increase in euthanasia cases and said that it has effectively destroyed the country’s palliative care system.

The issue of direct euthanasia of disabled patients is particularly sensitive in Germany, whose National Socialist regime carried out mass killings of patients in the years building up to the Second World War. In the so-called Aktion T-4 program, the government sanctioned the killing of thousands of orphans, mentally ill and disabled patients in the care of the state who were considered “life unworthy of life.” In the case of many of the children, the deaths were by starvation.

146 posted on 06/27/2010 10:24:42 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
Michael Moriarty nails it here!

Thread by 2ndDivisionVet.

Michael Moriarty: The Obama Omelette: Euthanasia, Abortion, Obamanomics… Death is Death

I must say, writing for Big Hollywood has made me face the most belligerently intelligent among my readers, many of whom refuse to believe that murder is murder.

Even those who are willing to admit that abortion does end a human life, defend Roe V. Wade by saying that abortion, like alcoholism, cannot be stopped by Prohibition.

Hmmm …

Alcoholism is only terminal for the alcoholic, therefore, having experienced it myself, it is suicidal.

A law against suicide is utterly unenforceable for the obvious reasons, mainly that, in the case of suicide, “too late is too late.”

Alcoholism, though a disturbing disease, is not as unrelentingly homicidal as abortion.

Abortion, on the other hand, takes the life of an innocent human being and is therefore, both per se and ipso facto, murder.

Let us not, despite the verbal circumlocutions of the Supreme Court, deny that.

A trimester division of gestation is no more convincing than the racist diatribes of Hitler’s most devoted scientists.

They are both rationalizations for mass murder.

To call such a charge “preposterous” is as blind or criminally negligent as were the citizens of the Third Reich.

Now, however, that we are in the most mature years of William Clinton’s Third Way, it is not genocide we are talking about but the infanticide of legalized abortion.

The Third Way and Roe v Wade contain fine distinctions about murder that only Ivy League lawyers and their justices on the Supreme Court can justify.

We, of the rude multitude, must simply obey their judgments.

No wonder we have the arrogance of Harvard’s Barack Obama for President.

The Clintons paved the way and played John The Baptist for Barack Obama or BO, the Big One.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

147 posted on 06/27/2010 10:27:25 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: iowamark; Ohioan from Florida; Goodgirlinred; Miss Behave; cyn; AlwaysFree; amdgmary; ...
It's murder for hire and nothing more.

Threads by iowamark and me.

Dignitas founder now multi-millionaire despite claiming he would not profit from the suicide group'

The founder of controversial Swiss suicide firm Dignitas has become a millionaire since setting up the group, it has been claimed.

Ludwig Minelli was virtually penniless when he founded Dignitas 12 years ago.

But, according to a new probe into the organisation, by 2007 he was worth more than £1million.

Although assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland, it is against the law to profit financially from someone’s death.

The investigation by respected Swiss magazine Beobachter says Mr Minelli is 'skating on thin ice'.

The report, headlined ‘Unexplained Wealth’, poses the question: 'How could a 77-year-old pensioner amass so much wealth?'

It says the former journalist, who is also a qualified lawyer, had no assets in 1998 but is now worth a fortune and owns a large house near Zurich.

Accounting records obtained by the magazine claim to show Mr Minelli’s personal wealth reached almost two million Swiss francs (£1.2 million) by 2007.

His taxable income was 162,000 Swiss francs (£97,800) and his taxable assets were 1,998,000 Swiss francs (£1.2 million)...

One nurse who assisted 30 deaths during her two and a half years at the clinic said she was so disturbed by its activities that she quit her job.

Soraya Wernli, who left Dignitas in 2005, has spoken to police about her concerns, saying she is convinced Dignitas is a money-making machine.

She said: 'I joined because I believed it was a good organisation which helped the terminally ill end their suffering but I came to realise it was really something different. It was all done for money...

Dignitas is often at the centre of controversy. Last month details emerged of a patient suffering from paranoid schizophrenia who was given drugs to end his life...

(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Dignitas founder, Ludwig Minelli, is making millions

Who says euthansia and assisted suicide are about compassion and choices?

Ludwig Minelli has become a millionaire in the ten years since he set up his Dignitas suicide clinic in Switzerland.

An article that was published in the Telegraph examined the real motivation for the Dignitas founder, Ludwig Minelli. They reported that he has become wealthy by selling memberships, assisting suicides and getting donations from his vulnerable clients.

The Telegraph newspaper reported:
A newspaper investigation has raised new questions about Dignitas and whether Ludwig Minelli, its founder and director, makes profit from his “mercy killings”.

Previously a human rights lawyer and an attorney at the Zurich bar, Mr Minelli had no taxable personal fortune registered when he set up his suicide clinic in 1998.

A decade later, the Beobachter investigation found, he had an annual taxable income of £98,000 and a personal fortune of over £1.2 million, wealth that includes a luxury villa.

Mr Minelli, who said he would take no salary from Dignitas when opening the clinic 12 years ago, has insisted that his wealth comes from an inheritance, left by his mother.

But the cost of a simple suicide at Dignitas has risen from £1,800 in 2005 to £4,500, fuelling suspicions that the clinic may not be sticking to Swiss laws that are supposed to prevent people “selfishly” profiting from assisted suicide.

The cost of the clinic’s full service, including funerals, medical costs and official fees, is as high as £7,000.

Andreas Brunner, a Swiss prosecutor, has accused Mr Minelli, and Dignitas, of hiding behind Swiss privacy laws to refuse publication of their accounts for the last five years.

”We have never had a good look at their book-keeping but in order to demand that we need a good reason and a concrete example that there is something suspicious to investigate,” he said. “He has promised for years to make the accounts public but it has never happened.”

Dignitas has faced criticism for accepting donations from suicide clients, one patient is said to have signed over more than £60,000.

Soraya Wernli, a nurse employed by Dignitas between 2003 and 2005, has accused the organisation of being a “production line of death concerned only with profits”.

In April this year, police divers found over 60 cremation urns dumped in Lake Zurich. Each of the urns bore the logo of the Nordheim crematorium used by Dignitas.

Mr Minelli, in an interview in March, insisted that Dignitas did not make profits for personal gain but claimed that Swiss law did not prevent money being made from euthanasia.

”If you are helping and abetting without selfish motives, this is quite legal,” he told the American PBS broadcaster.

”If you would take a lot of money for this service, then it might be selfish. But if somebody would do it for normal profit, it would even still be legal. But Dignitas is not working for profit. We are an association, and the association does not make profit. If we make profit, we will take this profit in order to have a higher quality of our services.”
At the same time Stuart Weisberg, a psychiatrist, announced plans to open a Dignitas style suicide clinic in Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal. The Oregon Medical Board has temporarily stopped Weisberg by suspending his license to practise medicine in Oregon. Nonetheless, the law in Oregon does not prevent doctors from competing with Compassion & Choices by setting up lucrative suicide clinics.

At the same time Compassion & Choices has also been able to turn assisted suicide into a lucrative fund raising business with reported income from donations and services in the millions.

148 posted on 06/27/2010 10:33:13 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

“Alcoholism, though a disturbing disease, is not as unrelentingly homicidal as abortion.

Abortion, on the other hand, takes the life of an innocent human being and is therefore, both per se and ipso facto, murder. ....”

He makes some great points.

149 posted on 06/27/2010 10:49:25 AM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Reminds me of Colorado’s local blood lust crazed killer!

150 posted on 06/28/2010 6:02:45 AM PDT by Lesforlife (Co-sponsor Personhood CO 2010 ~ Woo Hoo 62!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-230 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
Topics · Post Article

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