“Twin reduction”: Our pro-death, vanity abortion culture in a nutshell

[Jolie Rouge]

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2011/08/10/twin-reduction-our-pro-death-vanity-abortion-culture-in-a-nutshell/

[Jolie Rouge]

‘So what if abortion ends life?’: The most vile thing you’ll read all week
2:54 PM 01/27/2013

Have you seen the column titled, “So What if Abortion Ends Life,” by Mary Elizabeth Williams?
I’m a couple days late to it. It is so rare that someone is so forthcoming about their horrifying beliefs, that I just didn’t know how to respond until now.

This is is arguably the most disturbing section of a very disturbing column: http://www.michigandaily.com//blog/feminine-critique-why-im-pro-choice


My belief that life begins at conception is mine to cling to.



… In an Op-Ed on “Why I’m Pro-Choice” in the Michigan Daily this week, Emma Maniere stated, quite perfectly, that “Some argue that abortion takes lives, but I know that abortion saves lives, too.”

She understands that
[abortion] saves lives not just in the most medically literal way, but in the roads that women who have choice then get to go down, in the possibilities for them and for their families. And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.

If slavery is America’s original sin, then licensed infanticide must be America’s knockoff sin. Both institutions are horrid and revolting.

As committed as I am to the right to life, I could still have a reasonable conversation with someone who sincerely believes that life doesn’t begin at conception. This person, in my view, is wrong — but at least he isn’t depraved.

But Williams’ stated position is far, far worse.

She happily concedes that abortion is murder, only to argue that terminating a life is just a calculated trade-off. (Keep in mind, she’s not arguing that abortion should be legal in order to save the literal life of a mother — but instead, to preserve “the roads that women who have choice then get to go down, in the possibilities for them and for their families.”)

The obvious rebuttal to this is to say that an infant can sometimes also be inconvenient (trust me, I have one.) I love him dearly, but our two-month old, no doubt, limits our career options — at least, for now.

And clearly the lives of two adults trump the life of a two-month old, right?


Would Williams also agree that an infant is “indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing”?

Usually people who hold these repellent beliefs at least have the good political sense to conceal them. They say they want abortion to be “safe, rare, and legal.” Not Williams. By being so honest and forthcoming about her position, she undermines her cause — which, I suppose, is good news for the unborn.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/27/so-what-if-abortion-ends-life-the-most-vile-thing-youll-read-all-week/#ixzz2JHdGBLaZ

If a million-year old, single, dried, microscopic algae cell was found on Mars. The headlines would scream "Life found on Mars!"

Sadly many of those who would cheer that Mars "life" would also deny that a thumb-size human fetus, with millions of cells, blood and intaking nutrients....is also a life.

..

Thank you for recognizing that the unborn baby is a baby. I appreciate that.

And I'll think you'll find that inconvenience is the #1 reason for abortion. Either way, aborting unborn babies for whatever reason, is murder.

..

People kept slaves for financial reasons. You think we should reinstitute that peculiar institution?

[Jolie Rouge]

Toure thanks God for abortion

9:14 AM 01/28/2013

If you don’t know who Toure is, you’re a racist. If you do know who Toure is, you’re a racist. According to Toure, you’re a racist until you can prove to his satisfaction that you’re not a racist, which you can’t do because you’re a racist.

Now that we have the introductions out of the way, here’s Toure’s latest gem, courtesy of The Blaze: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/25/msnbc-host-i-thank-god-and-countryabortion-was-there-to-save-me/


During MSNBC’s “The Cycle” on Friday, co-host Toure celebrated the 40th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision to legalize abortion by telling the story of when he and an old girlfriend decided to have an abortion 15 years ago…

“I thank God and country that when I fell into a bad situation, abortion was there to save me and keep me on a path toward building a strong family I have now. And I pray that safety net stays in place,” Toure said.

Did you catch that? He was in a “committed relationship” that he knew he wasn’t going to be committed to for much longer, and he “fell into a bad situation.” He just slipped and fell and it went in, and the next thing he knew, he was taking her to the clinic. Oh well.

But the important thing is that a life was saved. Toure’s life. Just imagine what it would’ve been like these past 15 years if he’d actually taken responsibility for his actions. Just think of all the important work he wouldn’t have been able to do if he’d had to raise a kid. Like, um… that is to say… er… Well, okay, but that’s not the point. The point is: He might be even less famous than he is now! What could be worse than that?

I weep to think of how much more Toure’s parents could’ve accomplished with their lives if they hadn’t been burdened with him.

Well done, Toure. Once again, President Barack Obama is right: America shouldn’t be punished with Toure’s baby.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/28/toure-thanks-god-for-abortion/#ixzz2JHebO7wM

Typical lib mentality: "It's all about me, me, me, me, me. Personal responsibility? What's that?"

BTW, Tourette is famous??

[Jolie Rouge]

The coming collapse of the abortion lobby
By Dr. Charmaine Yoest - Published January 25, 2013 - FoxNews.com

Forty years after Roe v. Wade, a powerful shift is taking place within Big Abortion. What abortion advocates could not win through choice, they intend to impose through coercion.

Even Time magazine recently acknowledged on their cover that, for those so inclined to celebrate Roe’s anniversary, the rejoicing over abortion on demand should be tinged with concern. On January 14th Time asked “What Choice?” and then answered their own question: “40 years ago, abortion rights activists won an epic victory with Roe v. Wade,” the cover noted and then concluded: “They’ve been losing ever since.”

When viewed through the lens of policy -- instead of private decisions – “choice” encompasses individual liberty and a freedom to dissent. “Privacy” has long since vanished in the context of abortion policy: the abortion statists believe the procedure should permeate the public sphere.

We won’t see much of anything happen at the national level in the next several years, but there is a rising tide of pro-life legislation passing at the state level that is dramatically changing the contours of abortion policy in this country. The storm surge is coming.

They want abortion defined as fundamental health care for women...and they want every American to pay for it. They do not believe an individual should have a choice whether to participate in abortion. They plan to force every American, regardless of their personal beliefs and values, to participate in abortion as part of the everyday fabric of our culture through tax subsidies and occupational mandates.

And in response, what do we see in the pro-life, legal community? The number one piece of model legislation requested from our legal team is the one that assists in defunding the abortion industry. Following closely after is the model that reinforces Rights of Conscience. These legislative changes, when enacted, become a powerful restraint on the abortion industry.

But that’s is only the beginning. In the last two years alone the legal team at Americans United for Life has helped enact nearly 50 new pro-life laws – that’s about one-third of the unprecedented number of pro-life laws enacted in that time period. In addition, we have a tremendous tidal wave of life-affirming legislation in the pipeline. Notably, over the past two years, we had 2,500 requests for our model legislation and our legal team was at work in 39 states.

It’s a tremendous irony that this week brings together in close proximity the second inauguration of the most aggressively pro-abortion President in American history one day before the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and just prior to the annual March for Life. These events tangled together in time reflect the strange state of play in abortion politics today. But where pro-life representation counts – at the state level closest to the grass roots – the momentum is building.

The abortion lobby today is a little like the old Soviet bloc that looked invincible … right up to the day it collapsed under the weight of its own stagnation. The old guard of the Kremlin were on the wrong side of history, science, and the truth in much the same way that Big Abortion is today.

Cecile Richards, the chic Manhattan-based president of the world’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, is considerably more stylish than Mikhail Gorbachev, but they have in common a dependence on the power and money of the state to prop up a failed ideology.

While pro-lifers are still stinging from the loss of the presidency -- and perhaps the Supreme Court as well – savvy observers looking at the bigger picture resemble weathermen standing on a calm beach warning of the hurricane building far offshore.

We won’t see much of anything happen at the national level in the next several years, but there is a rising tide of pro-life legislation passing at the state level that is dramatically changing the contours of abortion policy in this country. The storm surge is coming.

Even abortion activists see the wind picking up. Witness the recent resignation of Nancy Keenan, now-former President of NARAL, the organization formerly known as the National Abortion Rights Action League. She stepped down acknowledging that the pro-life movement has real dynamism and strength among young people.

NARAL worked to airbrush the word “abortion” out of their name in 2003. Now, a mere decade later, 2013 began with Planned Parenthood announcing that they are moving away from the “choice” rubric.

The rhetorical dodge isn’t working for them anymore.

Abortion advocates don’t say exactly what phrases they plan to replace “choice” with. But their marketing trends are clear. The abortion lobby doesn’t want to talk about abortion as a “choice” because that implies there might be a decision to weigh. . . a moral concern to consider. . . even agonize over.

They want to use exclusively the language of “health care” –- for abortion to become routine, commonplace, and morally neutral like going to the dentist. The real move they are making, however, is not a rhetorical one. Abortion activists are actively and brazenly pivoting away from choice to coercion.

But the reality is, that won’t work, as the humanity of the unborn becomes more apparent to all.

Look across the country from state-house to state-house it is very heartening to pro-life advocates that a culture of life is being established one law at a time.

We don’t need The White House for the fifth decade of fighting Roe as state legislators work for a nation in which everyone is welcomed in life and protected in law.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/25/agenda-for-life-on-move-with-or-without-president-obama/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz2JJTxShQ1

[Jolie Rouge]

We are not the only ones with a problem


13 Abortions for Every 10 Live Births in Russia
10:43 AM, Feb 8, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER

This week Russian president Vladimir Putin brought Boyz II Men to Moscow to "hopefully [give] Russian men some inspiration ahead of St. Valentine's Day," according to the Moscow Times. That is, Putin brought the music group to town to encourage love-making, and, he hopes, baby-making to offset Russia's demographic disaster.

But, according to statistics in a new book by Jonathan V. Last, it might have been a wiser move for Putin bring in a pro-life group instead. The book is titled What to Expect When No One’s Expecting.

Russia's demographic disaster, Last details, is being exasperated by the fact that abortions are outpacing live births in Russia. "Abortion is rampant, with 13 abortions performed for every 10 live births," writes Last. "Consider that for a moment: Russians are so despondent about the future that they have 30 percent more abortions than births."

Last says that "This might be the most grisly statistic the world has ever seen. It suggests a society that no longer has the will to live."

But it is not just the astonishing abortion rate Russia must contend with. Last lists many factors.

"It seems to be a combination of factors. On the fertility side of the equation, patterns of family formation have changed dramatically since the end of the Soviet Union," writes Last. "Many couples choose long-term cohabitation as an alternative to marriage. In 1980, only 11 percent of births were to unwed mothers; by 2005 that number had shot up to 30 percent. Divorce has skyrocketed—Russia has the world’s high- est divorce rate."

The problem is staggering population decline. "Russia has experienced population decline three times during the last century," writes Last. "Each period was marked by crisis. The first depopulation came from 1917 to 1923, as the Russian Empire was overthrown and the Soviet Union was forged. The second came during 1933 and 1934 as Joseph Stalin collectivized the country’s farmers, resulting in mil- lions of deaths. The third came during World War II, which cost the lives of 25 million Russians. (Remember: No nation has experienced long-term prosperity in the face of contracting population.)"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/WhattoExpect.preview.jpg

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/13-abortions-every-10-live-births-russia_700451.html

[Jolie Rouge]

In its coverage of the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” which is headed to the House floor tomorrow, the New York Times was careful to note that the idea that a fetus can feel pain after 20 weeks is a “scientifically disputed theory.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/18/us/politics/undaunted-by-2012-elections-republicans-embrace-anti-abortion-agenda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& Pro-lifers, though, used the #TheyFeelPain hashtag today to pressure legislators to at the very least address that theory during a meeting of the House Rules Committee.


Mark Knoller ✔ @markknoller

WH issues veto threat against "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,"
on grounds it's "an assault on a woman's right to choose."

4:43 PM - 17 Jun 2013

What happened to the Liberal Battle Cry of "It's for the CHILDREN !!" ??


Rep. Martha Roby ✔ @RepMarthaRoby

I’m a proud co-sponsor of #HR1797,
the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
Thank you to so many who have expressed your support.

5:21 PM - 17 Jun 2013


Live Action @LiveActionFilms

Nadler: Evidence for/against fetal pain "very uncertain."

Even if true, shouldn't we err on the side of caution until we're absolutely sure?

4:49 PM - 17 Jun 2013

The White House issued a statement this afternoon http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/113/saphr1797r_20130617.pdf saying that President Obama would veto the bill were it to reach his desk, explaining that, as a “direct challenge” to Roe v. Wade, it expresses contempt for women’s health and women’s rights as well as for the Constitution itself. The statement also reiterates the Democrats’ stance that “government should not inject itself into decisions best made between a woman and her doctor.”

While that sounds like a direct call to repeal Obamacare, we’re not counting on it.

http://twitchy.com/2013/06/17/theyfeelpain-but-white-house-vows-to-veto-pain-capable-abortion-bill/

[hblueeyes]

I am pro life. I am also pro choice. Abortions are so barbaric. Do they feel pain. You bet they do. They have nerve endings. So therefore they feel. I do not judge woman who have had abortions. That is not my call. But I hate that it is used as a form of birth control. I also hate the responses those who get abortions give. There is only one way not to get pregnant. Do not have sex. Have some self control.

Me

[pepperpot]

I agree Hblue.... It enrages me to hear, "My body, my choice"...sorry, there's someone else's body in there too. :(

[Jolie Rouge]

Deliver Us From Evil: Black Professor Spews Hate
By Lloyd Marcus - June 24, 2013

Lord, deliver us from evil. I was appalled hearing black University of Pennsylvania Professor Salamishah Tillet say during a panel discussion on MSNBC that pro-lifers' opposition to late-term abortion is really about white-power racism.

Minority birth rates are up. Nutty professor Tillet believes those who oppose white women killing their babies are fearful of a decline of "whiteness, white supremacy, white privilege." It takes a pretty sick mind to find racism in desiring that women not kill their babies.

By the way, Americans aborts 4,000 babies a day, of which a disproportionately high number are black. Planned Parenthood was founded by racist Margaret Sanger to fix "the negro problem."


"We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," wrote Sanger.

Liberal blacks like Professor Tillet and Democrat so-called advocates for black empowerment ignore the blatant racism of Planned Parenthood. Heck, they even cheer Planned Parenthood on. With friends like Professor Tillet, Obama, and his Democrat posse, black America does not need enemies.

In his speech praising this vile organization which targets black babies, Obama said, "God Bless you" to Planned Parenthood. Around half of black pregnancies end in abortion. Apparently, the first black president is down with self-induced black genocide.

Research confirms that at the current rate of black abortions, the indigenous black man is near extinction.

Meanwhile, ill-informed blacks keep looking over their shoulders, fearful of conservative Republicans.

The fact that a vast majority of blacks continue to vote Democrat confirms that blacks are still falling for liberals urinating on them and telling them it is raining. Whenever blacks recognize the smell of urine, liberal media and Democrats tell clueless blacks that racist Republicans are the source.

As a black conservative, I know that Republicans are real friends of blacks. Democrats who say blacks are too stupid to acquire a photo ID and have for decades replaced live-in fathers in black homes with government, aren't. Thank God a few prominent blacks are beginning to wake up and smell the Democratic Party betrayal.

Two truths were exposed during Professor Tillet's remarkable chilling words on national TV. One: the visceral racial hate against whites that is pervasive, tolerated, created, and nurtured in liberal academia. How many students have been influenced by this hate-filled racist black professor at a cost of $50,000-a-year tuition?

But folks, teaching students to hate whites, particularly white males, begins in middle school and probably earlier. Around 15 years ago, a white friend of mine said her son came home from middle school extremely upset -- in tears. The poor kid was devastated, suffering with overwhelming guilt for being white after learning all the horrible things white men did to blacks, women, and Native Americans. His liberal agenda operative teacher actually implied that he should feel guilty.

Today, that same kid, my friend's son, is a twenty-something-year-old zealous member of the Communist Party. He believes that white males and capitalism are the greatest sources of evil in the world. Yes, I do believe that public-school indoctrination contributed to this young white man's self-hatred and hate for his country.

A second truth exposed in the MSNBC panel discussion is the slavery of political correctness. I am sure that at least one of the whites on the panel was thinking in response to Professor Tillet's remarks, "This sista is crazy." And yet, no one challenged Tillet's outrageous proclamation. The white liberals on the panel knew their place. Political Correctness 101: whites are forbidden to challenge "liberal" blacks.

Now as for black conservatives, well, it is open season on them. As a matter fact, white liberals get a gold star beside their name for every attack on a black conservative. White liberals are granted permission by fellow liberals to "freely" use the n-word. I have been called a "stupid self loathing n-----" for loving my country, being proud to be an American, and not viewing myself as a victim.

Professor Tillet has a history of promoting wacky, far-left, and racist ideas. In a sane world, Professor Tillet would be fired. A white professor expressing similar ideas in reverse would have been long gone. Tillet is paid to infect the brains of our youths while conservative thought is banned on most campuses. Whenever students successfully sneak in a conservative speaker, the guest speaker is physically attacked, with pies thrown at him and worse during his speech.

Black pundits, comedians, actors, and professors are given a pass and even celebrated for making racist, hate-filled comments about whites. Meanwhile, the slightest slip of the tongue that could possibly be interpreted as a racial slur against blacks has ended the political and professional careers of numerous whites. Such unfortunate whites are tarred and feathered in the mainstream media -- forced to beg for forgiveness while humbly bowing and kissing the rings of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. What a sickening visual.

Folks, Americans agree that racism is wrong, which a majority have expressed by electing a black president. But somehow, black America is given a pass, allowed to be racist. This is wrong and evil. Racism should not be tolerated from whites or blacks.

The American education system is infested with hated-filled racists who hate America as founded. I am talking the likes of professors Salamishah Tillet and my friend's son's middle school teacher. Passively continuing to allow and fund their access to our precious kids is insane.

Quoting Susan Powter, the '80s fitness guru, America, it's time to "stop the insanity!"

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/deliver_us_from_evil_black_professor_spews_hate.ht ml#ixzz2XBa69SC6

[Jolie Rouge]

The truth about Planned Parenthood
By Day Gardner | JUNE 25, 2013 AT 9:15 AM

Here we go again. Planned Parenthood and the "fact-checkers" at the Washington Post are laboring overtime to dismiss concerns about the racial impact of the organization founded by Margaret Sanger roughly a century ago. Their latest target: E.W. Jackson, candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, for exposing the racial motivations of Sanger's movement.

These critics need to re-check their facts. Elite bigotry was the fuel for the empire Sanger and her successors have built into a global force.

For decades, our culture of abortion on demand, at any time and for any reason, has adversely affected black women and their families. This is not ancient history. It is Virginia history, right now. The most recent abortion statistics for Virginia from 2011 show that while blacks make up 19.8 percent of the Commonwealth, they account for almost 42 percent of its abortions.

Planned Parenthood knows the statistics, yet they blame black women for the circumstances that lead to abortion -- that is, poor use of birth control. Leaving the subtle racism behind that assertion aside, it's deeply troubling that the persistently higher rate of abortions among blacks sparks only self-defense from the abortion industry.

Planned Parenthood has never confronted its founder's profoundly troubling history, instead annually presenting their most prestigious award in her name — the "Maggie." She is their modern heroine, but they ignore her unsettling record.

Historian Edwin Black presents a careful assessment of Sanger's ruthless career. In his history, "War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race," he writes, "Sanger surrounded herself with some of the eugenics movement's most outspoken racists and white supremacists." The most prominent was Lothrop Stoddard, a thoroughgoing bigot who wrote a book called "The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy." Sanger did not merely stand near Stoddard on public platforms, she invited him onto the board of her American Birth Control League.

In her book, The Pivot of Civilization, and throughout her career, she called for the elimination of "human weeds," for the segregation of "morons, misfits, and maladjusted" and for the sterilization of "genetically inferior races." She believed in mandatory segregation and forced sterilization of these inferiors.

Sanger did not merely dabble with such ideas and ideologues, she sought (and achieved) lifelong partnerships with the world's leading eugenicists. Is it any wonder that she agreed to deliver a speech at a rally of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, N.J.? In her autobiography, she admits knowing that the Klan terrorized black families with lynchings that began immediately after The Civil War. After her speech, she received and welcomed additional speaking requests from similar groups.

The KKK tortured and killed about 3,500 Blacks throughout its reign of terror. Planned Parenthood's abortion industry has killed millions — and the killing continues.

Was Planned Parenthood's Founder a racist? The facts speak for themselves.

Even after World War II and the stunning revelation of abuses by Nazi Germany's eugenic sterilization program, she championed a high official in that program, Hans Harmsen, to be the president of International Planned Parenthood in postwar Germany.

Black concludes that "Sanger never lost ... her fiery determination to eliminate the unfit." And it is poor defense that she included many others besides African-Americans among those to be eliminated by abortion and coercion. Today, Planned Parenthood eliminates more than 330,000 American babies every year. Almost 40 percent of those children are Black.

E.W. Jackson is making a few people uncomfortable by pointing out a truth they would rather forget. He deserves the thanks of every Virginian.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-truth-about-planned-parenthood/article/2532351?utm_source=Washington+Examiner%3A+Opinion+ Digest+-+06%2F26%2F2013&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Washington+Examiner%3A+Opinion+Digest

[Jolie Rouge]

Doctor tells woman 27-weeks pregnant to have abortion on a 'toilet'
By PAUL BEDARD | JULY 1, 2013 AT 2:05 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uCX-tLqETpk

On the eve of Texas Gov. Rick Perry's special legislative session to debate a bill to ban most abortions after 20 weeks, a disturbing new video has surfaced in which a New Mexico abortion doctor tells a patient undergoing a three-day abortion process for her 27-week-old baby to sit on a toilet if the fetus starts to come out unexpectedly while away from the clinic.

In the latest investigation from the antiabortion group Live Action, which has produced five other controversial video and audio investigations at abortion clinics in their "Inhuman" campaign, the doctor recommends that the woman sit on the toilet for the stillbirth until abortion clinic aides arrive to take the fetus away. A clinic counselor told the woman not to look in the toilet, suggesting she put a towel across her legs.

Dr. Carmen Landau of Albuquerque's Southwest Women's Options clinic also told the woman investigator not to call 911 if the baby unexpectedly started to come out if the patient wasn't in the abortion clinic.

From the transcript of the investigation provided to Secrets:


Dr. Landau: Yeah you do not need 911, you need us.

Woman: OK.

Dr. Landau: We're your one-stop shop.

Woman: Yeah. Because the hos — they, they, they, don't, I mean what, what, what, what would they do different there?

Dr. Landau: No it would just be terrible. Because then you're gonna, "oh, I'm having a third trimester abortion" and they're all "Aghhh," and no, you don't need —

Woman: And they try to like, have you do things.

Dr. Landau: Who knows. Not something that we would want to find out, what they would try to do.

Woman: You don't wanna —

Dr. Landau: Yeah that would just be weird, and not that's just not what you need. You need us to take care of you, 'cause we know how to take care of women in this situation.

Woman: Yeah, oh, OK, yeah. And the same thing if I, if it, pops out when I'm at the hotel —

Dr. Landau: Exactly. If you felt like all of a sudden, if you're one of those lucky people that has no pain in contractions, and you're all of a sudden like, "agh something's coming out," then you sit on the toilet, then you call us, and you unlock the hotel room and we'll come in and take care of you.

Woman: Sit on the toilet and call you. OK.'

Landau, according to the audio of her conversation with the woman, said that emergency workers wouldn't know what to do. "They would freak out, you would freak out, and then you would end up in some ER where you don't want to be, where they can't help you," she said.

Landau is the same doctor featured in a previous Live Action video during which she told the patient that the pain of the death shot given to a baby is similar to a flu shot.

In the new production she said the a fetus doesn't feel much pain. "A fetus at this stage of development has very limited abilities to understand or feel in the way that you and I do. Right? Like, like any living thing, if you pinch it will move away. And that's a very primitive pain response. And that's about all that it has at this stage," said the doctor.

Also in the video, the doctors and counselors explain in detail the three-day abortion process, make sure the wants an abortion and even probe to find out of the father of the baby is in agreement.

The clinic is known for doing late-term abortions. From the transcript:


Dr. Landau: People come all over, from all over the country, and from all over the world, to our clinic —

Woman: Oh wow.

Dr. Landau: Because in most places you cannot get an abortion after 24 weeks.

Woman: Yeah.

Dr. Landau: So we see a lot of people who are pretty late in their pregnancy.


Late-term abortions have always been more controversial and are now at the center of a debate in Texas where a plan to bar them failed last week. Perry's special legislative session beginning Monday will take up the ban again.

The abortion clinic in new Live Action investigation also has a branch in Texas, which could be come part of the abortion ban debate.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2532550#.UdGbQdHNqTg

[Jolie Rouge]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/s403x403/971114_695492243799478_2063939284_n.png
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s403x403/1185650_531529473586366_486825295_n.jpg

[Jolie Rouge]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/s403x403/936489_10151532227235911_957961688_n.png

https://sphotos-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/p280x280/1238042_569014459822708_156710299_n.jpg

[Jolie Rouge]

Violators Subject to Fines AND Imprisonment

https://sphotos-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s403x403/1157480_659062374103839_875942951_n.jpg

I see stuff like this and it only confirms that we live in a crazy world.
Prosecuted if you trample on a turtle nest...
totally cool if you kill babies in womb up to 40 weeks. Geez.
Pray for our nation.


https://sphotos-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/p320x320/409019_480296598676821_1413711142_n.jpg

This is what we all looked like at 12 weeks in the womb.
Legal to kill in all 50 states.
Anyone think its not a person?

Pass this along.

It literally might save a life.

[Jolie Rouge]

Journos marvel at image of baby elephant in womb; Pro-lifers marvel at journos

Posted at 8:01 am on September 3, 2013


David Grann @DavidGrann

Baby elephant in the womb: pic.twitter.com/CqGMbYHtmX

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BS4ZwiHIMAAfH2p.jpg


9:28 PM - 2 Sep 2013

Well, here’s something you don’t see every day: MSM journalists — including MSNBC’s liberal host Chris Hayes — in awe of an image portraying precious life inside the womb. On Monday night, The New Yorker’s David Grann circulated the famous image above that’s been floating around the Internet for several years.

It’s an unborn baby elephant. But it’s a start.

http://twitchy.com/2013/09/03/babyelephant/

[Jolie Rouge]

https://sphotos-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/p480x480/944410_10151633795216749_1511228827_n.jpg

[Jolie Rouge]

Life is more sacred on other planets ?

https://scontent-a-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/p320x320/1235158_573787386015162_824432014_n.jpg

[Jolie Rouge]

.

Spot the liberal hypocrisy...

https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s403x403/1237767_576919722343404_1597260908_n.jpg

[Jolie Rouge]

http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/liberal-logic-101-406.jpg

http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/liberal-logic-101-408.jpg

[Jolie Rouge]

Tiona Rodriguez Charged After Dead Fetus Found in Bag at Victoria’s Secret
Tiona Rodriguez stared straight ahead, expressionless, as she was charged with shoplifting
—and with an eight-pound fetus in her bag.
by Michael Daly Oct 20, 2013 12:17 PM EDT

Tiona Rodriguez came blank-eyed into Manhattan Criminal Court on Saturday morning, a 17-year-old who had been detained for suspected shoplifting in a Victoria’s Secret and found to have a nearly full-term dead baby in her bag. She and a 17-year-old friend who had been arrested with her arrived with their hands behind their backs, but when they sat in the front bench, it turned out that the kind-hearted officer escorting them had already removed handcuffs.

Rodriguez sat with her hands in her lap. She wore an oversized white t-shirt and light grey sweatpants, and she had a u-shaped nose piercing. The eyes behind her glasses showed nothing at all. She could have been awaiting the arrival of a bus, or perhaps that part of herself that must have departed when she carried around the corpse of her eight-and-a-half pound baby boy.

A court officer then came over and told the escorting cop, whose nameplate read Makinen, that procedure required his prisoners be handcuffed. The cop complied and the other teen, Francis Estevez, began to cry after her hands were cuffed behind her. Rodriquez remained expressionless, an absence of manifest feeling that seemed to reflect a heart that is not so much cold as closed off.

She was already the mother of a boy born in December of 2011, and she had posted a photo of him nuzzling her on Facebook. She gushed on her wall on October 12 like the best of moms. “My little man want to cuddle with me.”

She wrote the same day, “I need a job,” then proved she was not one just to wait for an opportunity to present itself.

“Hype! Got a job interview tomorrow. Omgggggg!” she exulted three days later, on October 15.

The interview was reportedly with Chipotle, but she did not report on the outcome. She instead posted what others may have taken to be a reference to he period, but was more likely related to the birth of her second child that day. “These cramps SON.”

At 12:30 pm the next day, she and Estevez were stopped by what the criminal complaint terms a ”loss prevention associate” at a Victoria’s Secret on 34th St. and Broadway. The associate allegedly found a $44.50 pair of skinny jeans in Rodriquez’s canvass bag. The associate is said to have also discovered a black plastic bag that emitted what police describe as a “strong odor.” That bag proved to contain a baby.

Rodriguez reportedly told police that she had suffered a miscarriage when she was six months pregnant and had not known what to do with the fetus. The medical examiner determined that the baby was just a month shy of full term. The cause of death may have been asphyxiation, but more tests were needed and will possibly take weeks. They could result in a murder indictment or no further charges at all—or something in between.

In the meantime, Rodriguez and her friend sat in criminal court, waiting to be arraigned for shoplifting. Rodriguez asked the cop named Makinen the time and he told her, but she gave no indication that the answer had any particular meaning.

Estevez was summoned to speak with her Legal Aid attorney in a glass booth on the left side of the courtroom. The teen became tearful and the conversation extended much longer than might have been expected for shoplifting. Detectives were at that moment executing a search warrant her home in Queens with the belief that Rodriguez had given birth to the baby there on October 16.

Rodriguez continued to sit impassively on the bench. She bowed her head, seemingly not out of shame but simply because she was growing weary. Her glasses slid down her nose, but her hands were cuffed and she now asked the cop for assistance. He pushed them back in place and she resumed gazing through them as if she saw nothing at all worth seeing.

Rodriguez seemed to pay no attention as defendant after defendant was arraigned—even in one of the day’s amusing exchanges, when Judge Debra James took exception when one of the defendants addressed her as “ma’am.”

“This professional woman would like to be addressed by my title,” she said.

Rodriguez's glasses slipped back down her nose, but she did not ask the cop for help again. She instead dipped her head and raised her leg so as to push the glasses back up with her knee.

An attorney named Genay Ann Leitman came into the courtroom and looked at some papers for a case that she had just been assigned by the court. “This is the girl with the baby,” Leitman noted aloud.

A red-eyed Estevez emerged and returned to the bench in a white t-shirt that said, “New York City” across the front. Rodriguez sat down in the booth with Leitman and for a few moments it appeared that she might have broken down in tears as she spoke to Leitman. But, it must have only been a trick of the shadows, for Rodriguez still had that same blank, dry-eyed look when she rose and pushed open the booth door with her shoulder and returned to her seat. She turned sideways to speak to Estevez, but the friend’s lawyer motioned for them to be silent and she went back to gazing straight ahead as the court recessed for lunch.

For the next hour and 45 minutes Rodriguez sat with her friend and the cop in the closed and otherwise empty courtroom. The afternoon session then commenced, and Rodriguez just kept gazing ahead until the clerk called the case whose docket number ended with 124. “Tiona Rodriguez,” the clerk called.

The clerk also called Estevez’s case and the two teens stepped together before the judge. Rodriguez leaned her head back to stretch her neck.

The prosecutor, Robert Hettleman, the chief of the child abuse unit at the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, noted that the defendants were “just 17 years old” and had been arrested for shoplifting after several items had been found in their bags.

“As I know everybody is aware, Ms. Rodriguez had in her bag the body of a baby,” he added.

But Hettleman said his office is holding off on further charges at the moment. “I don’t want to ignore the elephant in the room, but we are only arraigning the shoplifts,” he said.

When the question of bail arose, Hettleman noted that Estevez had a prior arrest for shoplifting as well as an arson charge, though that seemed likely to be dropped. Her attorney said that Estevez had a one year-old child and was attending high school. The judge agreed to release her on her own recognizance. “Please go to school, do your homework,” the judge urged.

Rodriguez has no criminal record and is also in school. The prosecutor nonetheless asked for $1,000 bail. “The NYPD, my office, and the office of the chief medical examiner are going to continue to vigorously and thoroughly investigate this matter relating to the baby,” Hettleman said. “But at this time, doing that shoplifting with the baby in her bag the entire time certainly suggests a little bit of difficulty following society’s rules.”

Rodriguez’s lawyer reported that her client would be seeing a psychiatrist. “Obviously, there is a problem,” Leitman said. “One can only imagine how she feels.”

Leitman said that Rodriquez and her two year-old son live with her mother, who was unable to attend. The mother had had sent her brother. “She's 17, she has never even been in criminal court, never been arrested,” Leitman said. “She’s a good student.”

The judge also released Rodriguez without bail. The judge told her to be back on December 10 to contest the charges or enter a plea in Part B. “B as in boy,” the judge said. That hung in the air for a moment, for whatever the full story of this latest tragedy must have involved a boy—but no boy was present as Rodriguez and Estevez turned away from the bench.

The cop, Makinen, removed their handcuffs and Estevez went over to her mother and fell into her lap, crying.

Rodriguez had no lap to fall in. She was bereft even of tears as she stepped from the courtroom with her uncle. He handed her a red hoodie. She donned the hood and pulled the drawstrings so her face was hidden as they faced the news photographers waiting outside. On the other side of the street, she climbed into a car for the ride to Brooklyn and her two year-old son. The investigation continues into the death of a second son, who seems to have been born and died the day she was to have had that job interview.

Just days earlier, the prospect of that job had caused her to post excitedly “Omgggggg!” on Facebook. She now rode off as silent as stone.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/20/tiona-rodriguez-charged-after-dead-fetus-found-in-bag-at-victoria-s-secret.html

comments

Don't forget the baby. This is ones step past strange because no mother carries a dead baby around in a shopping bag. Other teen girls have abandoned newborns as if they were trash, and claimed they were stillborn afterwards; but taking a corpse out on a shoplifting expedition?

Was she in shock? Was she grieving? It does not seem that way to me. I think the writer nailed her lack of emotion. Frankly, I can't imagine what was going through her mind and I blame the culture we live in because people are disconnected from everything real and involved in material things, social networks and entertainment to the exclusion of reality.

This is so strange that the Fortean in me wonders if some third world occult ritual is involved? At any rate, where was her own mother in all this? Where were her teachers? Did no one notice she was pregnant? Women don't get pregnant through parthenogenisis, where is the baby's father? Where is her own father?

..

[Jolie Rouge]

MSNBC host says newborn infants don’t count as ‘alive’ unless parents decide they do;
infanticide is the new abortion
By: Mike Adams, November 18, 2013

Today Natural News denounces Melissa Harris-Perry, the latest talking head “death worshipper” to publicly imply that she supports the murder of living, breathing newborn children. According to Harris-Perry, life begins when the parents feel like life begins. And together with some twisted new “ethics” arguments from the radical left, this can include months or years after a child is born.

That’s why I need to premise this article with a disclaimer: This article is not about abortion. It’s about the murder of children after they are born. Because once a child is born alive, terminating that life is no longer a “choice” … it’s murder by every legal and moral standard. Because while abortion friends and foes can argue about when life begins in the womb, no one disagrees that a child born alive is, well, ALIVE… do they?

Indeed, they do. MSNBC talking head Melissa Harris-Perry insists that life only begins when the parents have a “feeling” that it begins. “When does life begin? I submit the answer depends an awful lot on the feeling of the parents. A powerful feeling — but not science,” Harris-Perry said to nationwide astonishment on her July 21 MSNBC show.

And in one stroke, she simultaneously condones the murder of newborn infants (i.e. “post-birth abortion”) while attacking the science of biology which unambiguously states that a living, breathing infant with a heartbeat and brain function is alive, not dead.

But don’t tell that to the radical abortion whackos. Far beyond arguing for the “right” to abort a baby in the first or second trimester, many abortion advocates who run in the same circles as Melissa Harris-Perry are now publicly arguing that it is okay for parents to kill their children up to age three. This is now being promoted as a “post-birth abortion.”

It was also called a “fourth trimester abortion” by a clever pollster who recently took to the streets of George Mason University to find out if summertime college students would sign a petition legalizing fourth-trimester abortions. Nearly all who were asked to sign the petition did so! One of the college students even asked whether the procedure would “cause harm to the child.”

“Well the child wouldn’t be there anymore,” responded the pollster, after which the college student then proceeded to sign the petition.

Watch this video yourself at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v8--9R0I2Q&feature=player_embedded


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v8--9R0I2Q&feature=player_embedded

And yes, this is how incredibly stupid many of today’s college students really are. Then again, I remember a guy back in college who walked in on a group of us watching a football game and asked, “How many quarters are there in a football game?” His lack of mathematical prowess would have made him a ripe target for the “fourth trimester abortion” gimmick, I’ll bet.

Let’s be clear about where all this is headed. This is not about arguing over a woman’s right to have a first- or second-trimester abortion. This isn’t even a debate about a third-trimester abortion, the kind of abortion that was recently outlawed in Texas, much to the despair of late-term abortion advocates across the country, some of whom actually chanted “Hail Satan” in unison at the Austin abortion rally.

This is really about the zealous desire of the radical left to legalize the “aborting” of babies after they are born alive so that parents can have the legal right to kill living babies they suddenly decide they don’t want to raise.

Getting back to Harris-Perry, according to her radical brand of death culture ideology, a parent can “decide” that a baby born alive isn’t really alive yet. That parent can wait to see whether the baby is well-behaved, or cute, or has the right skin color, or whatever, before deciding whether to keep it or kill it. If such an ideology were fronted by someone like George Bush, it would be wildly derided as barbaric and anti-human, but because the idea of murdering newborn babies is being pushed by liberals, it is met with silence instead of outrage.

“When a pregnancy is wanted . . . It is easy to think of the bump as a baby,” says Melissa Harris-Perry, implying that when a pregnancy is not wanted, that bump isn’t a baby at all. Somehow it’s just a mass of dead tissue that you can dispose of at will. The fact that the “bump” results in a live childbirth is never admitted by people like Harris-Perry. The baby isn’t “alive” until you decide it is!

Recently, two black parents were shocked to find that the woman gave birth to a white baby. According to Melissa Harris-Perry, these two black parents can now “decide” their white baby isn’t alive at all and therefore commit infanticide that’s rephrased as a “post-birth abortion.”

This is the position embraced by the radical left: babies are not humans, and it is okay to murder them even up to age three.

( continues ... )

[Jolie Rouge]

Newborn babies have no “moral right to life”

A study published in the Journal of Medical Ethics argues that newborn babies have no “moral right to life,” and are thus not actually “persons.” Alberto Giubilini, from The University of Milan, and Francesca Minerva, a post-doctoral fellow at The University of Melbourne’s Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, are heroes of the radical left. They argue that infanticide should be legal but renamed “post-birth abortion.” http://www.naturalnews.com/035539_Medical_ethics_newborn_babies_abortion.html



They insist that newborn babies have no right to life and that parents can simply “decide” to kill their children for all sorts of reasons, including feeling like the child will be too expensive to raise, or suddenly discovering the fact that newborn babies cry a lot.

“Rather than being actual persons, newborns were potential persons,” write the study authors. They don’t really count as human beings until the parents decide they do.

This appears to be the same argument being made by MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry, who expressed extreme outrage over the murder of Trayvon Martin but seems to openly embrace the murder of countless black infants who are born alive and healthy but are “unwanted” by their parents. Life begins based “on the feeling of the parents,” she submits. So it’s utterly unscientific and subject to (liberal) interpretation, which in this case seems to favor infanticide and even eugenics. (By far most aborted babies in America are Black and Hispanic. If post-birth abortion is openly embraced, most of the murdered infants will also be Black and Hispanic.)

And so the violent contradiction of radical leftist ideology is exposed in the raw: Liberals claim to support “equality” but then they consider living babies to be “non-persons.” Liberals claim to support racial minorities, yet they endorse and even encourage the murder of the young babies of their own minority race. Liberals claim that all life is sacred, but their glaring exception is the life of a newborn child, which should be the most sacred of all but is instead considered worthless.

When it comes to taking a life, pro-abortion liberals are all for it. But when it comes to defending your life with a legal firearm, liberals are aggressively opposed to it.

So let me get this straight: Murder is okay but self defense is evil?

Or better yet, if Trayvon Martin had been an “unwanted” newborn just six months old, would his murder have been celebrated by the left instead of mourned? Help me figure this out, please, because I’m trying to understand at what age, exactly, the murder of a young black baby invokes racially-charged marches across the nation vs. receiving applause from people like Melissa Harris-Perry. Apparently if Trayvon Martin had been murdered by his own parents 16 years earlier, that would have been perfectly acceptable to these people.

Melissa Harris-Perry is a modern-day holocaust denier

At the risk of being accused of making sense, let me state the obvious here: People like Melissa Harris-Perry are the new holocaust deniers. They are anti-human agenda pushers who literally inspire others to murder their own children.

I don’t know about you, but I cannot accept, as a spiritual human being and a responsible member of society, the legalization of the murder of babies who are born alive and breathing. Yet that is precisely what the radical left is pushing for: the “right” to murder their own children up to the age of three. (Oh yeah, they’re also pushing for the “right” to kill elderly people, but that’s another article altogether.)

Such an agenda is despicable, if not downright demonic. And the fact that people like Harris-Perry spew this death cult violence on MSNBC — the propaganda branch of the White house — only further proves that MSNBC has lost all credibility and is now being run as a Hitler-style holocaust support network that tolerates hosts who effectively endorse the mass murder of babies all across America.

There is evil in this nation, and wicked women like Harris-Perry are steeped in it. Mainstream media networks like MSNBC thrive on it, and the destructive forces that currently occupy the White House gain power from it. Everywhere you turn, there are efforts under way to sow racial hatred, murder innocent babies, poison the food supply, chemically lobotomize children with vaccines and enslave the masses medically and economically.

I hereby denounce this wickedness, on the record, as a statement of principle for the world to witness. I will forever oppose these merchants of death and their sick, demented eugenics schemes. I will fight to protect the lives of the innocent for as long as I am alive, even if those innocent lives include two-day-old black babies who have just been brought into this world through the miracle of gestation and childbirth.

I call for all Natural News readers and supporters to take steps each and every day to resist evil and overcome the forces of death and destruction that now dominate our society through witch-hearted minions like Melissa Harris-Perry, a traitor to humanity and an endorser of the murder of children.

This woman should be immediately blackballed by the entire media and yanked off the air to return to her own little world of tampon earrings and dead newborns. Or maybe she will murder her own baby in the near future and feature it on the set of MSNBC in a special celebration broadcast complete with pentagrams etched on the desk and a chorus of hooded Satan worshippers drinking the blood of the dead fetus while Melissa Harris-Perry reads the names of sponsors. Sadly, it would probably get record ratings and be heralded by the death culture media as “pioneering television.” And it would most certainly be cheered by the radical left as a “choice.”

Sources for this story include:
http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4872
http://www.cafemom.com/group/1021/forums/read/18835909/Abortion_backer_Melissa_Harris_Perry_Life_begins_w henever_you_feel_like_it_does

http://www.realnews24.com/msnbc-host-says-newborn-infants-dont-count-as-alive-unless-parents-decide-they-do-infanticide-is-the-new-abortion/

[Jolie Rouge]

http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/1452401_10151752800373531_501686367_n-500x500.jpg

http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/1452401_10151752800373531_501686367_n-500x500.jpg

http://liberallogic101.com/?p=4348

You have health and licensing regulations for businesses that cut your hair or do your nails; that groom your dog or pierce your ears ... but they refuse to allow similar regulations on a business that performs invasive medical procedures on a womans' body ? Anyone else see something WRONG with that ??

[Jolie Rouge]

Mother Teresa may have stated the pro-life position best..

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1510952_10152192306201178_1277875137_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1510952_10152192306201178_1277875137_n.jpg

[Jolie Rouge]

Baby Nicole Munoz Was Never Given a “Right to Choose”
by Kristine Kruszelnicki | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 1/27/14 5:43 PM

http://lifenews.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/marlisemunoz4.jpg

The life of a 23 week-old fetus was aborted in the state of Texas yesterday, and ironically, the child’s mother wasn’t involved in the choice. In fact, had her mother still been conscious, a newly passed Texas law prohibiting the abortion of pain-conscious fetuses (beyond 20 weeks gestation) would’ve protected her life today.

But Baby Munoz was not your average “unwanted” fetus. Neither was the pregnancy that carried her, nor her eventual death anywhere near typical. Baby Munoz’ mother Marlise became brain-dead on November 26th when her wanted fetus was only 14 weeks old.

In order to give the fetus a fighting chance at viability, her hospital refused to disconnect her from life-support, going against the end-of-life wishes of Marlise and her family. And so began a lengthy court battle between Baby Munoz’ father Eric and the hospital, as lawyers and bioethicists argued over the Texas law that supposedly forbade the denying of life-sustaining medical care to a pregnant woman.

“The Texas Legislature can’t require doctors to do the impossible and try to treat someone who’s dead.” said bioethicist Arthur L. Caplan in a New York Times coverage of Baby Munoz story. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/us/pregnant-and-forced-to-stay-on-life-support.html?hp&_r=1

And it’s true that under normal circumstances, maintaining a body that has no hope of recovering consciousness is unethical. After all, Marlise wasn’t merely vegetative, she had been declared brain-dead. Were it not for the fetus in question, Marlise’s life-support machines would’ve been turned off and her body interned many weeks ago. But there was a patient in the equation who was not dead. A developing human child with her own body and her own rights and whose life-support was currently her mother.

Baby Munoz lost her life yesterday afternoon. It was her father Eric who got the right to choose in the end, as a judge ordered Marlise taken off life-support per the family’s wishes. And thus a wanted fetus who had been one of two patients prior to November 26th, was downgraded to a non-entity, condemned to lose her life-support and be buried with her mother’s body. With rising concerns over fetal abnormalities, the hospital chose to not attempt a preterm delivery. Instead of only losing one patient, the hospital lost two.

Has the debate over bodily autonomy and “a woman’s right to choose” so blinded society that even when the issue has nothing to do with a woman still capable of choice, and even when the body in question is no worse off on a ventilator than in the ground, we nonetheless cannot grant a fetus the right to what he or she needs to survive? How have we come to fight for a fetus’ life via fetal surgery on the one hand, and yet deny a nearly viable fetus the basics of oxygen and nutrients on the other hand – simply because her mother’s family wants a body to bury sooner rather than later?

One may fairly point out that organ harvesting cannot be forced on a dead body if doing so violates the desires expressed by the individual while still alive. Despite the obvious controversy of forced organ harvesting, the case of the so-called “dead incubator” is not entirely analogous. Under ordinary circumstances a woman has an obligation to provide basic care and protection to her offspring, and as a biological member of the human family, the fetal offspring should see that same obligation extended to him or her.

Where the woman’s right to bodily autonomy conflicts with the right of the fetus to live, the loss of life is a greater loss than the temporary loss of autonomy, and does not nullify the basic rights a fetus should have as a human being. This is even more true where the loss to the woman is completely null and the loss to her family is but a delayed funeral.

Unfortunately, Baby Munoz is victim of a flawed Texas law being applied at last. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/brain-dead-marlise-munoz-taken-off-life-support-in-texas-hospital-1.2511890 Baby Munoz could’ve been legally aborted at 14 weeks by a conscious mother, so it’s a wonder the hospital saw her as a patient to be fought for in the first place. There were two bodies present in the Munoz tragedy, one still having had a hope of survival. For a brief time, the John Peter Smith Hospital acted as though that were true.

So goodbye, Baby Munoz. You join the countless vulnerable and dependent human beings deemed too young to count as individuals with their own rights. Perhaps you would’ve been born deformed and brain damaged. Perhaps you would’ve overcome your rough beginnings and survived just like the 27 week fetus recently born to a woman declared brain-dead when 15 weeks pregnant. http://guardianlv.com/2014/01/baby-born-from-brain-dead-mother-confirm-texas-dilemma-video

We won’t ever know… But one thing is certain: your brief life has touched many. You won’t soon be forgotten.

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/01/27/baby-nicole-munoz-was-never-given-a-right-to-choose/

[Jolie Rouge]

https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/1661478_485102141596574_787338744_n.jpg

https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/1661478_485102141596574_787338744_n.jpg

[Jolie Rouge]

Pro-choice supporters praise repeal of clinic rules
Feb 4, 2014 2:52 PM

BATON ROUGE - Abortion rights supporters are applauding the decision of Gov. Bobby Jindal's administration to shelve its rewritten licensing regulations for Louisiana's abortion clinics.

But they say they're worried that the rescinding of rules that they said would shutter the state's five abortion clinics is only a temporary reprieve.

About three dozen supporters of the clinics protested at the Department of Health and Hospitals building Tuesday. They also delivered 6,000 written comments about the now-scrapped regulations, in the hopes of getting to weigh in before the next rules are written.

Late Monday night, DHH announced it was rescinding the licensing regulations it had enacted before Thanksgiving and said it would rewrite them.

http://www.wbrz.com/news/abortion-supporters-praise-repeal-of-clinic-rules/#.UvFVOaY9H_U.facebook

You have health and licensing regulations for businesses that cut your hair or do your nails; that groom your dog or pierce your ears ... but they refuse to allow similar regulations on a business that performs invasive medical procedures on a womans' body ? Anyone else see something WRONG with that ??

[Jolie Rouge]

NYC: More Black Babies Killed by Abortion Than Born
February 20, 2014 - 11:31 AM - By Michael W. Chapman

In 2012, there were more black babies killed by abortion (31,328) in New York City than were born there (24,758), and the black children killed comprised 42.4% of the total number of abortions in the Big Apple, according to a report by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

The report is entitled, Summary of Vital Statistics 2012 The City of New York, Pregnancy Outcomes, and was prepared by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Vital Statistics. (See Pregnancy Outcomes NYC Health 2012.pdf http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/Pregnancy%20Outcomes%20%20NYC%20Health%202012.pdf )

Table 1 of the report presents the total number of live births, spontaneous terminations (miscarriages), and induced terminations (abortions) for women in different age brackets between 15 and 49 years of age. The table also breaks that data down by race – Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black – and also by borough of residence: Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island.

The numbers show that in 2012, there were 31,328 induced terminations (abortions) among non-Hispanic black women in New York City. That same year, there were 24,758 live births for non-Hispanic black women in New York City. There were 6,570 more abortions than live births of black children.

In total, there were 73,815 abortions, which means the 31,328 black babies aborted comprised 42.4% of the total abortions.

For Hispanic women, there were 22,917 abortions in New York City in 2012, which is 31% of the total abortions.

Black and Hispanic abortions combined, 54,245 babies, is 73% of the total abortions in the Big Apple in 2012.

The number of non-Hispanic white abortions was 9,704, and the number of Asian and Pacific Islander abortions was 4,493.

The total number of live births in New York City in 2012 for women ages 15-49 was 123,231. That is a rate of 14.8 live births per 1,000 women, which is the lowest rate since 1979, according to the report. In addition, the live birth rate (per 1,000 women) has declined 3.9% since 2003, when it was a 15.4 rate, states the report. (See Pregnancy Outcomes NYC Health 2012.pdf)

In addition, while there were 73,815 abortions in New York City in 2012, the rate of abortions per 1,000 women is down 8.6% since 2011, according to the report.

Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have not published their abortion statistics for 2011 or 2012 yet, they do have data for 2010. (See Table 12. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6208a1.htm?s_cid=ss6208a1_w ) In the CDC’s numbers, there were 38,574 black babies killed by abortion in New York City in 2010; Hispanic babies aborted, 27,112; white babies killed by abortion, 9,220; and “other” aborted, 5,368. The total abortions in New York City in 2010 “reported by known race/ethnicity” were 80,274, according to the CDC.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/nyc-more-black-babies-killed-abortion-born?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Marketing&utm_term=Facebook&utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=black-babies#sthash.d3pq5ePl.dpuf

comments

Isn't this what Margaret Sanger planned all along?

..

Only in America is it a felony to be cruel to animals , but it is fine to murder via abortions.

..

To put this in context .... the new Yankee Stadium seats 50,086 people;
Reliant Stadium in Houston Texas can seat 72,744 people ...
in 2012 we lost 73,815 lives - by abortions - in New York City ALONE.


Exactly as Margret Sanger intended.... cull the herd of racially undesirable people.


"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
~ Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

[Jolie Rouge]

Nick Reynosa: Although I’m Agnostic, I’m Proudly Pro-Life

Being an atheist or agnostic in America isn’t the easiest of tasks. Likewise being a pro-life college student on a campus where the key age demographic (18-24) accounts for 44 percent of abortions performed isn’t a cake walk either. Yet I remain steadfastly pro-life and agnostic; as one secular person I know has described it, we are a minority within a minority.

So why do I hold both positions? Let me attempt to explain. Because the abortion debate is so extensively peppered with red-herrings and distractions, an interesting way for me to explain myself is to state issues that are NOT the reasons I am pro-life.

I am not pro-life because I am “anti-choice.” I believe in the maximum amount of just choices between consenting adults. I think women and men should have the right to choose to have sex or not. They should be able to choose whom they have sex with and when and how often they have sex. They should be able to access whatever scientific sexual education materials they are interested in and whatever types of birth control they prefer. Men and women who are not ready should be able to choose adoption and whether the adoption is open or closed. Women and men who are struggling as new parents should be able to choose to apply for government assistance for the sake of their new child.

But men and women should not be able to choose to take the life of their child. Not all choices are moral; the choice to own slaves is immoral, the choice to discriminate against minorities is immoral; choice is only the embodiment of freedom when those choices do not harm others.

I am not pro-life because I am against “women’s health.” I support the right of any woman to abort a pregnancy that poses a risk to her physical well-being. According to the Guttmacher Institute, only twelve percent involved issues with the mother’s health. In contrast, half of all babies aborted are female, and one-hundred percent of innocent female fetuses’ health is affected when they are intentionally killed. As the late and renowned atheist Christopher Hitchens stated, “In order to terminate a pregnancy, you have to still a heartbeat, switch off a developing brain . . . break some bones and rupture some organs.” Therefore I ask: is the purpose of women’s health to keep women’s hearts beating or intentionally stop them? I support women’s health by opposing the 1,750 baby girls that were unjustly killed yesterday, are being unjustly killed today, and will be unjustly killed tomorrow; that’s opposing a real “war on women.”

I am not pro-life because I against bodily autonomy. I believe that men and women should be able to put whatever they want into their bodies so long as they are willing to accept the consequences. Pregnancy is not applicable to this principle because both parents should accept the risk of parenthood by engaging in consensual sex. In rape cases, because consent is not present, I do believe a bodily autonomy argument is compelling and therefore I do support an exception for rape cases.

I am not pro-life because I am a clueless, sexist man who will never get pregnant. I consider myself a male feminist. I do not want to send all women back to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. On the contrary I have an equal amount of respect for women who wish to focus on their education or careers, for women who wish to be stay at home as mothers, or for those who wish to do both at some point in their lives. I hope my future spouse is an intelligent, accomplished, and independent woman; likewise I wish to live in a world where my future daughters have the same opportunities available as my future sons. In fact I hope the day Roe v. Wade is overturned, we have a pro-life female chief justice and a pro-life woman as our president. And on that beautiful day I would love to have pro-choicers lecture me about sexism.

I am not pro-life because of religion or politics. I am an agnostic and a registered independent. I hold some liberal, some conservative, and some libertarian viewpoints. I am certainly not pro-life because I want to create a wedge issue to divide people. I wish people would naturally recognize the dignity of the unborn. This would save me the time and money trying to persuade them; however if they don’t recognize fetal humanity I have a moral obligation to try to show them.

I am not pro-life because I want to restrict people’s freedom. If I am a “culture warrior” in any sense I would not be on the conservative side. In fact I am very socially libertarian on every issue except abortion. The right to an abortion perverts the very notion of freedom. As the classic libertarian quote states, the freedom to swing your arms stops at the tip of someone else’s nose. Likewise our sexual and reproductive freedom stops at the tip an innocent’s baby nose.

http://liberallogic101.com/?p=7642

[Jolie Rouge]

After-Birth Abortion
The pro-choice case for infanticide.
By William Saletan

Just when you thought the religious right couldn’t get any crazier, with its personhood amendments and its attacks on contraception, here comes the academic left with an even crazier idea: after-birth abortion.


No, I didn’t make this up. “Partial-birth abortion” is a term invented by pro-lifers. But “after-birth abortion” is a term invented by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose:


[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.


Predictably, the article has sparked outrage. Last week, Reps. Joe Pitts, R-Penn., and Chris Smith, R-N.J., denounced it on the House floor. But it isn’t pro-lifers who should worry about the Giubilini-Minerva proposal. It’s pro-choicers. The case for “after-birth abortion” draws a logical path from common pro-choice assumptions to infanticide. It challenges us, implicitly and explicitly, to explain why, if abortion is permissible, infanticide isn’t.

Let’s look at some of those assumptions.

1. The moral significance of fetal development is arbitrary. I often hear this argument from pro-choicers in the context of time limits on abortion. In a debate last fall, I drew up a timeline of fetal development, week by week. The response from Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, was that it would be arbitrary to use any point in that timeline to draw a legal limit on abortion rights. Giubilini and Minerva seem to share this view. “Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons,” they write, conspicuously omitting the idea that abortions at an early stage are better than late ones for moral reasons. “Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life,” they write. “Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life,” such as “spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted” or “fetuses where abortion is permitted.”


Furedi accepts birth as the first logical time limit, though not for reasons of fetal development. (See her comments 44 minutes into this video.) But Giubilini and Minerva push beyond that limit. They note that neural development continues after birth and that the newborn doesn’t yet meet their definition of a “person”—“an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.” Accordingly, they reason, “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.”


2. Prior to personhood, human life has no moral claims on us. I’ve seen this position asserted in countless comment threads by supporters of abortion rights. Giubilini and Minerva add only one further premise to this argument: Personhood doesn’t begin until sometime after birth. Once that premise is added, the newborn, like the fetus, becomes fair game. They explain:


n order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm. If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. … In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions. … Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero.

You may find this statement cold, but where’s the flaw in its logic? If the neurally unformed fetus has no moral claims, why isn’t the same true of the neurally unformed newborn?

[I]3. Any burden on the woman outweighs the value of the child. Giubilini and Minerva note that philosophers such as Peter Singer have presented arguments for neonaticide for many years. Until now, these arguments have focused on what’s best for the baby—in the words of recent Dutch guidelines, “infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering.” Giubilini and Minerva merely push this idea one step further, calling their proposal “‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice.”


“Actual people's well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of,” they observe. Accordingly, “if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.” An after-birth abortion might be warranted by any “interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being”—including “the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption.”

4. The value of life depends on choice. Pro-choicers don’t accept the idea that the path from pregnancy to maternity, being natural, must be followed. They argue that the choice is up to the woman. Some assert that the life within her has no moral status until she chooses to give birth to it.

Again, Giubilini and Minerva simply extend this logic beyond birth. Since the newborn isn’t a person yet, its significance continues to hinge on its mother’s decision. Neonates “might or might not become particular persons depending on our choice,” the authors argue. Until then, the newborn imposes no obligations on us, “because we are not justified in taking it for granted that she will exist as a person in the future. Whether she will exist is exactly what our choice is about.”

[Jolie Rouge]

5. Discovery of a serious defect is grounds for termination. Fetal development can turn tragic at any point. Most people agree that abortion should be permitted when a grave defect is discovered at amniocentesis. In the partial-birth abortion debate, pro-choicers extended this rationale, arguing that abortions in the third trimester should be permitted when horrible defects were identified at that stage. Giubilini and Minerva take this argument to the next level, noting that defects often remain undiscovered until birth:


An examination of 18 European registries reveals that between 2005 and 2009 only the 64% of Down's syndrome cases were diagnosed through prenatal testing. This percentage indicates that, considering only the European areas under examination, about 1700 infants were born with Down's syndrome without parents being aware of it before birth. Once these children are born, there is no choice for the parents but to keep the child, which sometimes is exactly what they would not have done if the disease had been diagnosed before birth.


The authors conclude that “if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.” And it isn’t clear where the line against infanticide would be drawn. “We do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible,” Giubilini and Minerva write. They doubt that “more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child.” But critics are already noting that many defects are discovered later.

In sum, the authors argue:


If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.


I don’t buy this argument, in part because I agree with Furedi that something profound changes at birth: The woman’s bodily autonomy is no longer at stake. But I also think that the value of the unborn human increases throughout its development. Furedi rejects that view, and her rejection doesn’t stop at birth. As she explained in our debate last fall, “There is nothing magical about passing through the birth canal that transforms it from a fetus into a person.”


The challenge posed to Furedi and other pro-choice absolutists by “after-birth abortion” is this: How do they answer the argument, advanced by Giubilini and Minerva, that any maternal interest, such as the burden of raising a gravely defective newborn, trumps the value of that freshly delivered nonperson? What value does the newborn have? At what point did it acquire that value? And why should the law step in to protect that value against the judgment of a woman and her doctor?

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infan ticide_.html

[hblueeyes]

Unbelievable.

Me

[Jolie Rouge]

Unbelievable.

Me


Pro-choice supporters praise repeal of clinic rules
Feb 4, 2014 2:52 PM


NYC: More Black Babies Killed by Abortion Than Born
February 20, 2014 - 11:31 AM - By Michael W. Chapman


After-Birth Abortion
The pro-choice case for infanticide.
By William Saletan

which post ?

[hblueeyes]

Good question. Pretty much all of them.

Me

[Jolie Rouge]

Australian TV Star Commits Suicide After Depression Triggered by Her Abortion;
U.S. Media Accounts Omit Abortion
By Jill Stanek | February 23, 2014 | 08:56

http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/2013/charlotte.jpg

Abortion proponents push for easy access to abortion, deemphasizing its after-affects to the point they absolutely refuse to acknowledge post-abortion depression, which further incapacitates those actually living through it.

This is such a tragedy. Charlotte Dawson, RIP, was born in New Zealand but achieved fame in Australia as a model and a judge on Australia’s Next Top Model.

From The Telegraph, February 23: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/charlotte-dawson-haunted-to-the-end-by-her-inner-demons/story-fni0cx12-1226834851520


In the end it seemed like the final, inevitable episode of a tragic soap opera: Charlotte Dawson -- the model, TV star and social crusader who spent many of her adult years battling depression -- ended her life at the age of 47.

It is understood Dawson was found hanged in her luxury Woolloomooloo Finger Wharf apartment by a security guard on Saturday morning, the day after the birthday of her ex-husband and the man she still described as the love of her life – disgraced Olympic swimmer Scott Miller….

But friends believe she had never really gotten over her marriage to Miller, which ended in divorce after only a year. In her tell-all autobiography Air Kiss And Tell, she revealed she had an abortion because the pregnancy would interfere with Miller’s preparation for the 2000 Olympics – and blamed that for the start of her long battle with depression.

More from The Australian: http://m.theaustralian.com.au/media/broadcast/celebrities-and-friends-pay-tribute-to-charlotte-dawson-dead-at-47/story-fna045gd-1226834556350


Ms Dawson gave an insight into her life – both her troubles and the highlights – in her autobiography, released late 2012.

In the book, Air Kiss and Tell, she revealed she had had an abortion with her former husband, Olympic swimmer Scott Miller, so that he would not have any distractions in the lead up to the Sydney Olympics.

She had been looking forward to having a baby but sensed “hesitation” in Miller.

”Everything Scott had done was leading up to this moment and nothing could stand in his way, so it was decided that we would terminate the child and try again later. Who needed a developing foetus when a gold medal was on offer, eh?”

Ms Dawson wrote that she was alone when she had the termination.

In he book she wrote that this was her first experience with depression – a battle she continued to fight for the next 14 years.

The Guardian: http://guardianlv.com/2014/02/charlotte-dawson-australias-next-top-model-judge-dead/


Miller… did not go with her when she had the procedure...

But on this side of the pond, newsrooms aren’t mentioning the abortion connection.

Associated Press: http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/tv/australian-tv-star-charlotte-dawson-found-dead/2014/02/22/f8db185c-9c3a-11e3-8112-52fdf646027b_story.html?tid=pm_pop


Dawson revealed in her 2012 autobiography “Air Kiss & Tell” that she was frequently visited by the “depression bogeyman.”

People: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20790140,00.html


Despite her professional successes, Dawson’s personal life was often tumultuous. In 1999, she married Olympic swimmer Scott Miller. Although the marriage ended after a few short months, she struggled with the breakup and said he was the only man she would ever marry.

After Miller recently gave a tell-all interview to 60 Minutes in Australia, Dawson spoke out: “I continue to fight my depression”…

Seemingly a stab, from E! Online: http://www.eonline.com/news/513761/charlotte-dawson-australian-tv-star-found-dead-at-age-47


Per the BBC, Dawson suffered with depression for a very long time and was admitted to a hospital in 2012 after being targeted by cyber bullies.

Dawson married Olympic swimmer Scott Miller in 1999 but they were divorced two years later. She had no children.

Awful.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jill-stanek/2014/02/23/australian-tv-star-commits-suicide-after-depression-triggered-her-abort#ixzz2uGe2p3J3

comments

Having an abortion is an emotionally traumatic experience. The women's movement, in its never ending 'War on Women' does not want it known that many (most, all) women are psychologically harmed when they choose to kill their baby. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12709667

..

An abortion to avoid interfering with the Olympics? The Olympics are a global joke. A human life is not. I'm sorry she's gone but I can't believe anyone would abort a baby over something so pointless, temporary, and stupid as the Olympic games. God rest her poor soul.

..

I think she aborted for the approval and love of a man who later left her. His distance had nothing to do with the games but to his diminishing feelings for her. Many men find the upcoming birth of a child to be an inspiring event which fuels their ambitions.

..

It's always and forever about the agenda...never the truth, never honesty...always the agenda. If you can, steer clear of these idiots come the judgement...I have a feeling it won't be a pleasant experience being near them.

To Charlotte's family, God Bless, and my condolences.

..

To the liberal there is to be no emotional fallout after an abortion. You are to feel relief from a burden and continue to
live a care-free life, so say they all.
As a matter of fact all human behavior is not a factor that they need to concern themselves with.

[Jolie Rouge]

AZ Democratic Party @azdemparty Follow

ACTION ALERT: Join us in the rose garden of the Arizona Capitol today at 1 P.M.
as we rally against anti-abortion bill #HB2284. #AZForward

12:20 PM - 4 Mar 2014

A small rally was held today at the Arizona state capitol in protest of House Bill 2284, which would allow surprise government inspections of abortion clinics. The bill would also make it a misdemeanor to aid or assist a minor in obtaining an abortion in violation of the state’s parental consent laws.

H.B. 2284 would also amend existing reporting requirements, requiring an abortion provider to report “whether an infant was born alive during or immediately after an attempted abortion and the efforts made to promote, preserve and maintain the life of the infant.”


Alia Rau ✔ @aliarau

HB2284 to add unscheduled inspections of abortion clinics passing #azleg House so far.
Dems say its unconstitutional, violates privacy

3:19 PM - 4 Mar 2014



AZ Democratic Party @azdemparty

#HB2284 was just approved by the #AZ House and will now be sent to the Senate.
Email your legislator and tell them to vote NO on #HB2284

3:48 PM - 4 Mar 2014

http://twitchy.com/2014/03/04/arizona-bill-that-would-allow-surprise-inspections-of-abortion-clinics-passes-house/

comments

This is because we do not want to be sure women are getting their abortions in clinic that are clean and not a hazard to their health? Yep....war on women by the democrats once again.

..

So unscheduled inspections of beauty parlors and restaurants are constitutionally okay, but unconstitutional for abortion centers?

..

Yeah, because abortion clinics should be off limits to inspections! Like they were in PA. That will NEVER backfire.

..

So...the media portrayed 1062 as an anti gay bill. Will they portray this as a Republicans stomp kittens bill?

..

Well one of the comentors on the stop the bill hashtag said; she pictured the effects of this bill being hordes of republicans storming abortion clinics to stop abortions. (words to that effect) That and driving women back to back alley coat hangers and creating more Gosnells seem to be the common themes

..

Women should be allowed to have unsanitary back alley abortions free from inspections! No wait...


I don't understand this bill, but I'm pretty sure it's racist and antigay.


Here is the bill if anyone is interested.
Make minor adjustments to existing law.
Its one page and the changes are in bold purple font.

http://legiscan.com/AZ/text/HB2284/id/922537

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/hb2284p.pdf

[Jolie Rouge]

Anchor Dares to Ask Planned Parenthood Boss When Life Begins;
She Dodges: It 'Isn't Really Relevant'
By Tim Graham | February 28, 2014 | 23:10

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion conglomerate, did an interview Thursday on the new Fusion network with anchorman Jorge Ramos.

The section sparking everyone’s attention came when Ramos – self-respecting enough to offer more than the piffle a Ronan Farrow offers on MSNBC – asked when life begins for Richards. She labored mightily not to answer, since abortion advocates eschew science and believe that women should be able to abort even AFTER a child is born: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lN2HJHUOMyg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lN2HJHUOMyg


JORGE RAMOS : Can I ask you a philosophical question?

CECILE RICHARDS : Sure.

RAMOS So for you, when does life start? When does a human being become a human being?

RICHARDS This is a question, I think, that will be debated through the centuries, and people come down to very different views on that.

RAMOS But for you, what’s the point?

RICHARDS It is not something that I feel like is really part of this conversation. I mean, to me, we work with women – I guess the way I’d really like to I think every woman has to make her own decision. What we do at Planned Parenthood is make sure that women have all their options for health care, and they have the option to have a healthy pregnancy, they have the option to put a child up for adoption if they decide to carry the pregnancy to term, or they have the right to make a decision to terminate a pregnancy.

Ramos tried to pierce through the moral relativism one more time, and Richards repeated "I don’t think it’s really relevant to the conversation," but then she said for her three children, their “life began when I delivered them.”

On Friday, Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser offered a pro-life response:


Cecile Richards’ comments were insensitive and unfeeling to any woman who has ever been pregnant, especially those women who have suffered the pain of miscarriage.

This is an example of the problem of getting so wrapped up in the politics of ‘reproductive choice,’ that the real experience of pregnant women becomes secondary. Richards’ statement misses what most Americans understand about pregnancy, especially women. There are two human beings involved.

If there are disappointments at the ballot box for Planned Parenthood in 2014 it will be an outgrowth of this disconnect with the women they claim to represent.



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2014/02/28/anchor-dares-ask-planned-parenthood-boss-when-life-begins-she-avoids-ans#ixzz2v2ZYjk00

[Jolie Rouge]

"I held you on Friday night for the first and last time ever. It was one of the saddest, proudest, most heartbreaking, and beautiful moments of my life."

http://www.local12.com/images/TOMMY-RILES-BABY-HANDS.jpg

A father's heartbreaking letter to his son goes viral, read it here: http://lifeofdad.com


Dear Son,

I held you on Friday night for the first and last time ever. It was one of the saddest, proudest, most heartbreaking, and beautiful moments of my life. It was an honor to hold you.

I'm proud of you, son. Even though you only made it halfway through the pregnancy, you have left a mark on our family that will last forever. Because of you, I love my wife more than ever. Because of you, I feel a stronger connection with my kids then ever. When I hug them, I feel your presence.

Sadly, I'll always remember the phone call last week from your mom when she told me that we lost you. I was home with your brother and sister, and I was in shock. Your pregnancy seemed to be the smoothest and most healthy one that your mom had ever had. I did my best to comfort her on the phone, and then we grieved together when you both got home. Our kids didn't let us cry too much, though, because they kept requesting snacks, more snacks, and more snacks after that.

Usually Friday is a day that I look forward to, but not last Friday. I never shave on Fridays, but this time I did. This was the only day that I would ever hold you... I had to look my best. When we checked into the hospital at 8 a.m., it was a dark, dreary, and rainy day, just like the feeling in our hearts.

Your mom took medication to start the labor process, and over the next 10 hours, she showed her love and devotion to you as we neared your birth. By the way, your mom is the most incredible and beautiful person I have ever met. I'm so lucky to be with her and call her my wife.

At 8:35 p.m. on Friday, February 28th, you were born. Even though there was no life in your beautiful body, you were full of love, heart, and courage.

Your mom held you, and then it was my turn. I felt both happy and devastated to be holding my second son in the palm of my hands. We cried. We told you about your brother and sister. We visualized you running through open fields somewhere, free, happy, and full of life. We sang to you. After singing the final line of "Silent Night" to you... "Sleep in heavenly peace..." we knew that it was time to say goodbye.

You were with us for way too short of a time, but you will be remembered forever. We named you Scotland Bansley Riles, and your mom and I will bring your ashes with us someday when we travel to Scotland. Usually we don't travel with our kids (they're a little too crazy), but we want to show you the world.

Our precious Scotty... I miss you more than I've ever missed anything. We love you. We will honor you. We will be better parents and people because of you. Thank you.

Love,
Dad


Beautiful and moving. What a wonderful tribute to an unborn life and I mean that sincerely. I would, however, love to hear the comments from those who believe abortion is acceptable about this letter. I appreciate this father's love for HIS unborn child and the pain he is experiencing as I've had my own miscarriage. And I love the fact this letter was made "news worthy" because we need more postiive and human interest stories in the news. But on the flip side of the coin, why is the public not outraged that we allow the killing of same aged unborn babies EVERY day thru abortion?

[Jolie Rouge]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1/1897924_715668405131383_2087525010_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1/1897924_715668405131383_2087525010_n.jpg

"In my 36 years of pediatric surgery,
I've never known of one instance
where the child had to be aborted
to save the mothers' life."

- C. Everette Koop
U.S. Surgeon General 1982-89

[Jolie Rouge]

Aborted fetuses were burned in the UK as fuel to heat hospitals.
This is what happens when socialized medicine meets radical environmentalism
Written by Michele Hickford, Editor-in-Chief on March 24, 2014

My friends, this is what happens at the confluence of socialized medicine, the decline of morality and environmentalism.

According to the UK Telegraph, “the remains of more than 15,000 babies were incinerated as ‘clinical waste’ by hospitals in Britain with some used in ‘waste to energy’ plants.”

Ten National Health Service trusts had the remains of aborted fetuses burned alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat.

One of the country’s leading hospitals, Addenbrooke’s in Cambridge, incinerated 797 babies below 13 weeks gestation at their own ‘waste to energy’ plant.

The mothers were told the remains had been ‘cremated.’

This is compassion? This makes environmental sense? This somehow protects women and gives them more choice?

It is appalling and repulsive and systematic of where Western — supposedly advanced — culture is headed. Have we so denied the sanctity of life that we can literally toss the unborn on the ash heap?

Read the full story at the UK Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10717566/Aborted-babies-incinerated-to-heat-UK-hospitals.html

And after that, pray this horror movie is not yet playing on our shores.

http://allenbwest.com/2014/03/aborted-fetuses-burned-fuel-uk/

comment

Want to get them up in arms? Replace "fetus" with "kittens".

..

Strange how as long it is in the name of reproductive freedom they have no issue with it!

.

If one single living cell, no matter how primitive, were found on Mars, the scientists of the world would cry, "We've found LIFE!" But if a woman conceives a child (which is comprised of billions of cells) that child is not considered 'life'.

..

Isn't that how the Jews were disposed of by Hitler?

..

I really wish that women would wake up and realize that the "freedom of choice" movement has little to do with choice and more to do with lining the pockets of many in the "healthcare" industry. At the same time, there are instances that call for early pregnancy termination (for example, ectopic pregnancy, which is fatal to both mother and child if not removed), and I don't like the idea of politicians making a procedure like that illegal. But this? This is utterly disgusting.

[Jolie Rouge]

At Cal-Santa Barbara, professor shoves pro-life demonstrator, then school rips pro-lifer in 'apology'
Dan Calabrese on Friday March 28th, 2014

http://static.caintvnetwork.com/551ac102absignstealer.jpg

How understanding of the Founding Fathers to even grant free speech to "evangelical types."

First watch the confrontation on video. It's at 2:29 that the liberal professor, Mireille Miller-Young, shoves the pro-life demonstrator, who is 15 years old by the way. She does it again at 2:57. Be warned that the liberal professor also spews some profanity before the shoving takes place.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sLemX9QtUa4

Now what you see here is astonishing enough, but it's nothing compared to the "apology" offered by Michael D. Young, the university's vice chancellor for student affairs. Question: Does anyone remember how to simply say "my bad" when it clearly is? Not this guy, I guess. Here is the full text of the "apology" (via National Review http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373957/ucsb-smears-pro-lifers-after-professors-attack-pro-life-student-alec-torres ) with particularly egregious parts in bold:


March 19, 2014

Dear Students:

Over the past several weeks, our campus has been visited by a number of outside groups and individuals coming here to promote an ideology, to promulgate particular beliefs (at times extreme beliefs), or simply to create discord that furthers a certain personal agenda. Some passionately believe in their causes, while others peddle hate and intolerance with less-than-noble aims.

Whatever the motives and goals, the presence of such people and groups on campus can be disruptive and has the potential to draw us into the kind of conflict that puts at risk the quality of exchange of ideas that is fundamental to the mission of our university.

What is happening now is not new: evangelical types have been visiting UCSB and university campuses since time immemorial. What we see at UCSB today is simply the most recent generation of true believers, self-proclaimed prophets, and provocateurs.

During the past few weeks, UCSB has been visited by various anti-abortion crusaders. Some have been considerate and thoughtful in promoting their message; others have openly displayed images that many in our community find distressing and offensive.

We have also seen earnest and thoughtful religious missionaries, and we have seen proselytizers hawking intolerance in the name of religious belief. As a consequence of interactions with the more extreme of our visitors, students have expressed outrage, pain, embarrassment, fear, hurt, and feelings of harassment. Moreover, I have received requests that the campus prohibit the peddling of “fear,” “hate,” “intolerance,” and “discord” here at UCSB.

Those of you who know me are aware that I have strong views on the matter of intolerance. You also know that I hold equally strong views on the sanctity of free speech. If you have heard me speak at Convocation or at anti-hate events, or if you have seen me officiating at the Queer Wedding, you know that my message on both counts is clear. Recent events lead me to believe that this message bears repeating.

First, the principle of freedom of expression resides at the very foundation of our society and, most certainly, at the foundation of a world-class university such as UC Santa Barbara. Freedom and rights are not situational: we either have freedom of speech or we do not. We cannot pick and choose which views are allowed to be aired and who is allowed to speak. If that were the case, then only those in charge — those holding power — would determine who gets to speak and whose views are heard.

Second, freedom is not free. The price of freedom for all to speak is that, at times, everyone will be subjected to speech and expression that we, ourselves, find offensive, hateful, vile, hurtful, provocative, and perhaps even evil. So be it! Law and policy ban only an extremely narrow band of speech and expression-”yelling ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre,” for example, and child pornography. The price we pay to speak our own minds is allowing others to speak theirs, regardless of how oppositional their views are to our own. Our Founding Fathers-all white men of privilege, some even slave owners-got it right when designing the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Having firmly stated my support for freedom of expression, I hasten to follow with a lesson my mother taught me when I was a small child, a lesson that has remained with me the rest of my life and that I relay to our entering students every fall at Convocation. My mother taught me that just because you can say or do something doesn’t mean that you should. Civility plays an important role in how we choose to exercise our right to expression. We all have the right to say odious things, to display offensive slogans and placards, and to hurt and disrespect groups and individuals that disagree with us. The question is: should we? Should we engage in these behaviors just because we can or because they serve our political, religious, or personal agendas?

At UCSB, our students have proven that we are better than this. While it has not always been easy, time and again UCSB students have demonstrated that they can disagree about the critical issues of our time — fundamentally and passionately but within a framework of humanity and civility, respecting the dignity of those whose views they oppose. Time and time again, UCSB students have demonstrated that they understand their role in defining the character and quality of this campus community — revealing their unwillingness to lower themselves to the tactics of those whose agenda comes wrapped in intolerance and extremism.

And now we are tested once again, outsiders coming into our midst to provoke us, to taunt us and attempt to turn us against one another as they promote personal causes and agendas. If we take the bait, if we adopt negative tactics and engage in name calling, confrontation, provocation, and offensive behavior, then they win and our community loses. While urging you to engage with differing ideas and opinions in a civil manner, I also want to remind you that you have the option not to engage at all. You do not have to listen to, look at, or even acknowledge speech or expression that you find provocative or offensive. The Arbor Mall is a free speech area, as is the area in front of the University Center. If you do not want to be confronted by certain materials or expressions, you should avoid the free-speech areas when you expect that you might encounter them, or simply ignore them. I promise you the visitors will hate that.

And, finally, if you think demonstrators, activists, or proselytizers are violating the law, report them to the UC Police Department. If you think they are violating campus policies, report them to the Office of Student Life (OSL). Similarly, if you feel harassed or think you are being subjected to offensive speech or material as an involuntary audience, please contact the Office of Student Life immediately. Katya Armistead, Associate Dean of Student Life and Activities, can be reached at 805-893-8912. If you do not reach her, someone at the general OSL number (805-893-4550) will be able to relay your message to her. The campus regulations address UCSB’s free speech policies further:http://www.sa.ucsb.edu/Regulations/campus_activities.aspx<http://www.sa.ucsb.edu/Regulations/campus_activities.aspx> .

What I am suggesting may not be easy, and it may feel more satisfying (at least for the moment) to lash out. (My mom often reminded me that doing the right thing is difficult.) If you feel that you must respond, hold a peaceful, thoughtful, civil, and dignified counter-demonstration, and show how students engage intellectually and politically at UCSB.

Sincerely, Michael D. Young Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs

[Jolie Rouge]

At Cal-Santa Barbara, professor shoves pro-life demonstrator,
then school rips pro-lifer in 'apology'
Dan Calabrese on Friday March 28th, 2014

continued ....

Wow. At no point in the "apology" does this guy even address the fact that a member of his own faculty physically assaulted a campus visitor after stealing her sign from the "free speech area." But then, why would he when he clearly establishes throughout his missive that the "provocateurs" were at fault for the entire incident because, though they had the right to exercise their free speech, they should not have done so.

Welcome to free speech on Campus America, circa 2014. It really is this bad.

http://www.caintv.com/at-cal-santa-barbara-professor

comments

As a law enforcement officer in the state of CA, I highly recommend that the female whose sign was stolen by this professor should file robbery charges with the Santa Barbara PD, not the campus cops, against the professor!

Robbery, as defined by the CA penal code, is theft from a person by force or fear. When the professor assaulted the girl who was trying to get her sign back from the prof and her goons, she changed what would have been a mere theft to a robbery, a misdemeanor to a felony. All aspects of the crime of robbery are complete, and better yet, were all captured on camera.

..

Not sure how the laws work in Calif, but here we would arrest the professor for battery against a minor. Shoving the protester is battery, and since she is only 15, that makes her a child. The statutes are fairly cut and dry. Can you imaging what would have happened if it were a conservative prof and a pro-abortion protester? The Gestapo would have already shut the place down.

..

Technically speaking, whenever a felony has been committed, the agency with jurisdiction can file charges with or without the cooperation of the victim. We do it all the time when one gang banger shoots or beats down another gang banger and they end up in a hospital (mandated reporters). The problem in this case is that unless the victim contacts law enforcement, and there are no mandated reporters involved (technically speaking, all teachers in CA are mandated reporters for child abuse, but here the mandated reporter is also the suspect), law enforcement would likely not even know it happened. Also, the cases where we have uncooperative victims rarely do well in court.

Additionally complicating this incident is that the SBPD and the UCSB Police have overlapping jurisdictions (I believe) and it would likely automatically get deferred to the university cops, who unfortunately have a much more political job than the local PD does. University LE agencies are controlled heavily by university administrators who want at all cost to avoid having the university look bad in the news. Thus the cops there have to walk a much finer line than those working elsewhere. Where I would definitely have charged her with a felony, or two, and slapped some bracelets on that prof, then given her a ride to the county hotel (jail), they likely would be told to go the misdemeanor route, minimizing the charges and thus the negative appearances on the nightly news.

..

I have to disagree. I hate abortion as much as you do. But if she tried to press charges it would only start an unnecessary flame war (not to mention that the judge would probably rule in the professor's favor). It would probably be best if she didn't whine about it and took it calmly. Maybe release a statement saying she forgives the professor and feels sorry for her, because that would make a HUGE statement about the nature of pro-lifers (especially as compared to anti-lifers). Trying to fight the communist media is an exercise in uselessness and futility

..

University of California at Santa Barbara Associate Professor Mireille Miller-Young was charged with one misdemeanor count each of theft, battery and vandalism in the March 4 incident according to FoxNews.

..

I find it distressing that he also seemed to feel the need to specifically point out that our Founding Fathers were all white men and many owned slaves. WTH does that have to do with anything? All it does is show he is a racist. Free speech areas? This is America we are a FREE SPEECH AREA, every inch of this country is a free speech area. Talk about a violation of the 1st Amendment!

[Jolie Rouge]

This Speech On Abortion By A 12-Year-Old Left Her Pro-Choice Teacher Speechless
March 07, 2014

At first Lia's pro-choice teacher told her that she was disqualified from the school's speech competition because her topic was too controversial. But then she HEARD the speech and was so blown away she changed her mind. Lia went on to WIN the competition! And no wonder. Lia is more articulate than 98% of the people I know. If you agree, share her speech!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOR1wUqvJS4&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOR1wUqvJS4&feature=player_embedded

Read an interview with Lia and her mom here. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/tiny-pro-life-activist-making-big-waves

Tiny pro-life activist making big waves
by John Jalsevac - Tue Dec 21, 2010 15:46 EST

When 12-year-old Lia Mills decided to tackle the topic of abortion for a grade 7 speech project in February 2009, neither she nor her family had any idea what lay in store for them.

Now, less than two years later, a homemade video of Lia’s speech, shot with their tiny digital point-and-shoot, has been watched over a million times on Youtube, at least one unborn baby has been saved from abortion, Lia has spoken before a crowd of over 10,000 pro-lifers at the National March for Life in Ottawa, and she is viewed as one of North America’s most promising up-and-coming young pro-life leaders.

“Never in our wildest dreams” did the Mills see what was coming, said Kimberley Mills, Lia’s mother, in a recent LifeSiteNews.com interview. “This could only have been a God-thing because it’s so unbelievable. Lia made a simple decision to speak on a topic she felt God prompted her to speak on and He took it from there.”

Against the odds

The last two years appear all the more remarkable in light of their inauspicious beginning – when Lia’s pro-abortion teacher found out the topic of her speech, she told Lia that she could present her speech to her class, but would be automatically disqualified from the speech competition attached to the project. She recommended that Lia choose a different topic.

At the recent International Pro-Life Conference in Ottawa, Lia told the crowd that being “a fairly competitive person,” she was eager to participate in the competition; however, “after more praying and thinking” she decided that she would stick with the topic of abortion anyway, even if it meant disqualification.

Unexpectedly, however, Lia’s teacher was so impressed with the speech that she backtracked and, despite her pro-abortion views, recommended that Lia represent her class in the schoolwide competition.

But before Lia had a chance to go before the school and the panel of judges, her teacher demanded that she remove one sentence from the speech that referenced God. Once again Lia was forced to choose between her principles and her desire to compete, and possibly win – and once again, she chose the former. “After a night of tears and prayer, I went to school, and sadly told my teacher that I couldn’t take that sentence out and that I would withdraw from the contest,” she says.

But once again her teacher changed her mind, and allowed Lia to compete anyway.

At the schoolwide competition, one pro-abortion judge stepped down from the panel before Lia even began. And after the speech, the judges initially told Lia she had been disqualified. But controversy among the judges eventually led to a reversal, and Lia’s family learned the next day that Lia had been declared the winner.

But, as it turned out, this welcome and hard-won victory was only the beginning for Lia.

[Jolie Rouge]

continued ....


Not your typical young activist

When the young pro-life orator, who is now 14 years old, steps up to the microphone, you hardly know what to expect. At best, one looks for the normal fare of the precocious young activist – that is, a cute, but ultimately unoriginal parroting of the movement’s talking points.

Not so with Lia. At the conference in Ottawa, Lia could barely see over the podium. But when she opened her mouth what poured out was a confident, well-structured, fluid and insightful look into the nature and struggles of the pro-life battle – a speech that stood on its own two feet, without any apologetic remarks about “her age.” Lia had written out her speech beforehand – but barely glanced at her notes the whole time she delivered it. “What I realize now,” she told the crowd, “is that when I made the decision to speak on abortion, it wasn’t just a decision to do a speech. It was a decision to step into a spiritual battle, a battle that I wasn’t aware of in the least and a battle that was growing in intensity.”

“I still don’t know why God chose me to do what I did,” she continued, “but I’m learning, ever so slowly, to try and embrace conflict, to try to realize that some things will only change as I become willing to stand in opposition to the status quo, as I become willing to see beyond my need for peace and safety and learn to step out of the boat and make some waves.”

Naturally, many of those who have seen Lia in action have questioned how much of the credit for her accomplishments she can truthfully accept: have not her parents held her by the hand all the while, prodding her to take on these controversial topics and perhaps even writing her speeches for her?

But according to Lia’s mother, this simply is not the case.

According to Kimberly, not only did Lia independently make the decision to speak about abortion, but she and her husband even urged Lia to choose another topic when her original choice was opposed by her teacher.

While Christian and pro-life in their convictions, the Mills had never been involved in the pro-life movement. “We tended to regard [abortion] as a ‘side issue’, and we focused our attention elsewhere,” says Kimberly.

“Many times,” she continued, “we’ve asked [Lia] if she wants to step away from pursuing this. Every time another speaking engagement comes up, we leave it to her to decide whether to accept. Each time she prays and comes back with her answer and, up to now, she’s always felt that pressing on is what God wants for her.”

While Kimberly says she’d like “to think that, as parents, we’ve made a positive impact on Lia … as I see what God is doing in and through her, I know it goes way beyond what we’ve done. Often, I find myself, like Mary, just marveling and pondering these things in my heart.”

As for the actual content of Lia’s speeches, the writing and research is performed almost entirely by the young girl herself, though she does seek advice from her family regarding pacing, flow, and content. Sometimes her speeches will go through as many as 7 or 8 drafts.

The power of new media

When Lia’s parents uploaded her first speech onto Youtube, with the intention of sharing it with family friends, they were completely unprepared for the reaction. The statistics for the video immediately shot through the roof, and it sparked a heated debate – so heated, in fact, that the Mills were forced to shut down commenting on the video after death threats were leveled against Lia.

Lia says that through witnessing the response to that video, “I really developed an appreciation for the work that any pro-life organization does, because there is so much backlash and opposition.”

But while the “opposition was extremely intense … so was the support,” she says.

The greatest affirmation of the effectiveness of that video came in the form of a comment on the video by someone who said that his aunt had decided against getting an abortion, after watching Lia’s speech.

After seeing the possibilities of Youtube, Lia has gone on to produce a number of new videos tackling different aspects of the pro-life issue. The videos have since become more sophisticated, as the Mills have begun to splice together footage and use other effects, but they are still recording with the same basic point-and-shoot as at first.

While none of these videos have enjoyed nearly the same level of exposure as the first one, they all have healthy stats – between ten and fifty thousand views.

Big words from a little person

A quick glance at the comments beneath these videos shows that the commonest rebuttal to Lia’s arguments is her age … and her size. But while she herself is the first to acknowledge her youth and inexperience, she is completely undeterred.

“I know these all seem like big words coming form a very little person, but we’re all little compared to God,” she told the pro-life conference. “God’s not looking at how big we are, or how smart we are or how popular we are. He’s just looking at how willing we are.”

Lia is certainly willing. And perhaps equally as important, given her age, so is her family. She has two siblings (plus a third in his mother’s womb), and - while Lia’s lookalike youngest sister can get frustrated explaining that she is not her famous sibling - they are both “very proud” of her, says Kimberly. In fact, when Lia first started getting so much attention her whole family prayed and fasted together to discern God’s will. “We knew that what was happening with Lia was going to affect us all in some way,” says her mother.

And when the family finally “voted” on where to go with it, “everyone was unanimous in their belief that God was behind this and that we should press forward.”

And press forward they have.

As Lia explained it in the conclusion to her speech at the conference: “It’s often said and believed that God will never give us a problem that’s too big for us to handle. But my youth pastor took that and he dared to disagree. He said ‘No! God always gives us a problem that’s way, way to big for us to handle, but not too big for us to handle together with Him.’

“So here we are, with this, massively huge conflict and battle laying before us, but an even bigger God behind us, backing us up and watching over us. As someone wiser than me once said, ‘All it takes for evil to prevail, is for good men to do nothing.’ In this conflict, let’s not be guilty of doing nothing. Stay strong, and do what you can; every little thing counts.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/tiny-pro-life-activist-making-big-waves


... after death threats were leveled against Lia.

Seriously ??

[Jolie Rouge]

Lia Mill’s speech to the national pro-life conference in Ottawa

by The Editors
Wed Dec 15, 2010 14:20 EST


Note: This is the prepared text of Lia Mill’s speech to the National Pro-Life Conference in Ottawa at the end of October.

(LifeSiteNews.com) - In grade 7, I had a school speech project, where I was supposed to write a speech about a topic of interest. I wasn’t sure what to do at first, but then I felt God encouraging me to do the topic of abortion. At the time, I had almost no idea what abortion was. I knew a little bit about it, but I had no motivation, other than God telling me, to do that topic. I knew that abortion was wrong, but that was about it. Regardless, I went with it.

Initially, my teacher and many other people tried to help me choose another topic, they though it was “too big, too mature, and too controversial”. I though about changing my topic and my mom even helped me find books on other topics, but something inside me told me I needed to stay with the topic of abortion. So, I stuck with it and continued working on my speech.

There was a contest attached to the speech project. Being a fairly competitive person, I wanted to be a part of it. But, I was told that if I did the topic of abortion, I would present in front of the class but would automatically be eliminated from the contest. After more praying and thinking, I decided to give up my chances in the contest and continue writing my speech. When I eventually presented it in front of my class, my teacher decided that my speech was very well written, and she wanted to recommend that I represent our class in the speech contest. This was pretty incredible, especially since she was pro-abortion in her convictions. She had me present my speech in front of two other teachers, who agreed that I should represent my class in the school level.

Long story short, last minute, my teacher asked me to remove the one sentence in my speech that made reference to God. I was naturally upset, but after a night of tears and prayer, I went to school, and sadly told my teacher that I couldn’t take that sentence out and that I would withdraw form the contest. My teacher decided to let me continue anyways. There was some opposition to my involvement in the contest and one of the judges stepped down – refusing to listen to my speech, but in the end, I was declared the winner for the school.

Throughout this time, my parents and I had been working on recording my video so that we could post it on YouTube; my mom wanted all of her friends to see it. During this part of the journey, I really developed an appreciation for the work that any pro-life organization does, because there is so much back-lash and opposition. When we first posted the video, which you can find on YouTube by searching “Lia Mills”, there were hundreds of comments posted with the intent of scaring me and threatening my faith, my family and my life. The opposition was extremely intense, but so was the support.

What I realize now, is that when I made the decision to speak on abortion, it wasn’t just a decision to do a speech. It was a decision to step into a spiritual battle, a battle that I wasn’t aware of in the least and a battle that was growing in intensity. At the time I started writing my speech, Obama had just assumed responsibility as President of the United States. Now, my family has never been too involved in politics in Canada, never mind the US. Although we were aware of the inauguration and Obama becoming president, what we weren’t aware of was that Obama is the most pro-abortion president ever. We didn’t know anything about the huge controversy and conflict that was happening down in the States because of Obama’s views. So when my video was posted on YouTube, me, and my family, were thrown into a huge conflict.

You know you’re striking the heart of the battle, the heart of the issue, when the opposition against you is intense, and yet the support behind you is also intense. And that really sums up exactly what happened the days following the first posting of my video.

I think that, as Canadians, we tend to be the peacemakers and people pleasers. We try to avoid conflict, regarding it as a negative thing, rather than something that will help us grow and mature. So we spend our lives trying to make people happy, not ruffle any feathers, and live our lives in peace. At school, what is taught should be accepted as truth, no arguing, and no conflict what-so-ever. Even as children, although conflict does happen, we learn to almost be afraid of it. We learn to do what we’re told and when we don’t, we are labelled as being “rebellious”.

But the truth is that, as pro-lifers, even if we’re Canadians, we have to learn not to avoid conflict, but to embrace it and approach it in the right way. Instead of arguing and only trying to prove a point, we have to respond, not in a superior way, but by speaking the truth. If we respond in anger or out of frustration, this doesn’t help the conflict in any way. In fact, it does the opposite of what we want.

For the last little while, I’ve been working on a series of short videos that address common arguments that are thrown at me and questions that people have. The main reason we’ve been working on these, is because there are people our there who have real questions and who are really looking for truth, and I’m hoping that the videos will help them in some way.

I still don’t know why God chose me to do what I did, but I’m learning, ever so slowly, to try and embrace conflict, to try to realize that some things will only change as I become willing to stand in opposition to the status quo, as I become willing to see beyond my need for pace and safety and learn to step out of the boat and make some waves.

Since I have this opportunity to speak before you now, let me share with you what I’ve learned about engaging in the conflict surrounding the issue of life. I hope that in some way what I say encourage and inspire you and maybe equip you for the battle we’re in. The 5 things I’d like to share with you today are 1: Stick to the key issue, 2: Ask questions, 3: Be able to say “I don’t know”, 4: Speak the truth in love, and 5: Know your enemy.

One, stick to the key issue. With the issue of abortion, it’s easy to get sidetracked. When speaking about the issue, if the topic is on whether abortion should be legal, people will often immediately jump to extreme cases, like rape or incest, or they start talking about the importance of choice. If you take the bait, you’ll start trying to show how rare those extreme cases are or you’ll start arguing about the fact that “choice” should come before intercourse – which will lead to discussions about birth-control and abstinence.

The heart of the conflict within the issue of abortion is whether or not the unborn are human. I believe that one reason why people in support of abortion avoid the heart of the conflict is because they know that if the unborn are human, then abortion is wrong, and there’s no denying it. Whenever I’m in a situation like that, I always try to bring it back to the main question, which is: “are the unborn human”?

Two, ask questions. The best way to make a person think is to ask a question. So if they make a point, question it. “Well, how did you come to that conclusion”, or “Why do you think that”? Not only odes this cause the other person to think, but it keeps you actively listening to what they’re saying and we avoid the problem of focusing on what we’re going to say next. Your friend would be expecting you to try and make a counter-argument. By asking questions, you show them that you’re listening, but you also stick to the main conflict at hand and avoid unnecessary conflicts. You avoid all conflicts that arise from simply throwing arguments back and forth and instead, you focus on the conflict at hand.

Three, don’t be afraid of saying “I don’t know”. I find, even in myself, the temptation to always want to be right. So when we don’t have an answer to someone’s question, we tend to either panic, ignore the question or give a wrong response and we often become self-defensive. None of these responses are helpful. Simply saying “That’s a good question, I don’t know the answer” is probably the best response. It’s encouraging to the other person when they aren’t talking to someone who’s just listing off answers.

Most times, people aren’t arguing as much as they’re looking for truth. And that’s exactly what we have to offer. But if you’re just arguing with someone, they won’t see the truth behind the anger and ignorance masking your words. That’s why it’s important to show them the truth, but also show them in a loving way, not being afraid of not having all the answers. While we want to boldly face the conflict surrounding the issue of abortion, we want to avoid internal conflicts caused by our fear of not knowing something. Humility will keep us from looking down on others.

[Jolie Rouge]

When you’re faced with a question you don’t know the answer to, ask God for help. I think often we don’t like being wrong because what we believe as being truth is being threatened. Perhaps we think that if we don’t know the answer, that means that maybe, what we believe as truth might be wrong. So simply saying, “Okay God, I know that this is true, for example, I know it’s wrong to kill the unborn, but I’m confused. If you want to help me understand why this is truth, that would be great, but I’m still going to believe that this is the truth because I trust you more than my ability to understand.”

Four, speak the truth in love. I find that, at least to me, one of the biggest reasons why people don’t listen on the issue of abortion is because they feel judged. If you’re talking to a friend who’s had past experience with abortion, it won’t help them if you say something like “You should have considered everything before you had sex”. That’s true, but it’s not loving in that circumstance.

It’s only going to hurt your friend, which will probably cause her to lash out at you because of her pain. And then you’ll lash out at them, and it’s just a continuous cycle, where the truth never gets understood because of the way it’s communicated. One of the things that breaks my heart is when I see pro-life people leaving comments on my videos that are full of hatred, anger and condemnation.

If we speak the truth in love, we keep the conflict where it needs to be, allowing people to collide with the truth in a safe way. If we don’t speak in love, we cause them to collide with us and, once again, we produce unnecessary conflict. It’s extremely important to show love to people, especially if they’ve had past experience with abortion. If they’re shown kindness continually, and they feel safe talking to you, you’ll be able to show them the truth, and help them, instead of hurt them.

Five, make sure you know your enemies. As it says in the bible, “Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against the powers of darkness”. We aren’t fighting a conflict with people; we’re fighting this conflict against Satan. When I made the decision to do the topic of abortion, I was thrust into this conflict, and had people attacking me and my family. But one of the things I always try to remember when I speak to people about this issue is that I’m not fighting against them; I keep my eyes on my true enemy. And I remember I’m not fighting for myself; I’m fighting for the kingdom of heaven and the lives of the unborn. And then that reminds me that I don’t need to depend on my own strength, because I have big Daddy God to back me up.

When fighting in this battle, we always have to remember to get our strength from Him. We definitely don’t have enough strength on our own. This is so important, no matter where you are positioned in the conflict – whether on the front lines or in prayer, or whatever. We need to stay spiritually strong, because although Satan’s using people to fight against us, he’s also trying to get our eyes off of God and onto the chaos around us. Once we let Satan distract us, we start losing the battle. If we take our eyes off God, we start trying to win the battle on our own. And that’s exactly how we lose.

I know these all seem like big words coming form a very little person, but we’re all little compared to God. God’s not looking at how big we are, or how smart we are or how popular we are. He’s just looking at how willing we are.

It’s often said and believed that God will never give us a problem that’s too big for us to handle. But my youth pastor took that and he dared to disagree. He said “No! God always gives us a problem that’s way way to big for us to handle, but not to big for us to handle together with Him.”

So here we are, with this, massively huge conflict and battle laying before us, but an even bigger God behind us, backing us up and watching over us. As someone wiser than me once said “All it takes for evil to prevail, is for good men to do nothing.” In this conflict, let’s not be guilty of doing nothing. Stay strong, and do what you can; every little thing counts.

Thank you!

http://www.lifesitenews.com/resources/lia-mills-speech-to-the-national-pro-life-conference-in-ottawa

[Jolie Rouge]

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: ‘Senseless’ and ‘Wrong’ to Punish Men Who Slip Women Abortion Pills
By Tom Blumer | May 16, 2014

Did you catch the story about those conservative Republican male chauvinist pig politicians in Florida who think that it was a waste of time to pass a bill which would make it a crime for a guy to secretly administer an abortion-inducing drug to a spouse or partner he impregnated? How utterly outrageous ... Wait a minute ... It was Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz who said that? C'mon, that's not possible. What? There's audio of her saying that on a Florida public radio station? Get outta here. If that were true, the press would be printing and broadcasting stories on her outrageous statement 24/7 ... wouldn't they?

Well, no. The audio of Wasserman Schultz can be found here at WFSU in Tallahassee. Excerpts from the related report by Sascha Kordner follow the jump: http://news.wfsu.org/post/dnc-chair-fla-lawmaker-speak-out-against-abortion-related-bills-headed-gov-scott


DNC Chair, Fla. Lawmaker Speak Out Against Abortion-Related Bills Headed To Gov. Scott

The Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee and a Florida lawmaker are joining forces to speak out against two-abortion related bills that cleared the Florida Legislature this year and are awaiting Governor Rick Scott’s signature.

One measure essentially prohibits a doctor from performing an abortion past the 20th week of pregnancy, if it’s determined that the fetus can live outside the womb with standard medical care. ...

... Florida lawmakers also passed a bill making it a separate crime to cause the death or injury of on an unborn child at any stage of development during an attack on a pregnant woman. That was filed in part because of a woman dubbed the “abortion pill victim” whose pregnancy was terminated after her ex gave her a pill disguised as an antibiotic.

Still, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz says more time should have been spent this year on jobs, the economy, and accepting federal funds to expand Medicaid.

“Instead, Florida Republican lawmakers have wasted taxpayers time and money by passing these extreme bills that further limit women’s reproductive rights. It is senseless and it’s wrong,” said Wasserman Schultz.

Both women say they believe Governor Scott will sign these measures into law. The Governor has done so in the past with other abortion-related bills.

The foundation for Wasserman Schultz's opposition sounds eerily like the excuse President Barack Obama gave as an Illinois state senator when he "voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion." http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/23/new-audio-surfaces-of-obama-defending-infanticide-in-illinois/ He claimed, as National Review described it in 2012, that "by providing legal protection and 'recognition as a human person' for a pre-viable infant, the law could be used to threaten Roe v. Wade." http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292204/obama-s-infanticide-votes-patrick-brennan

Here is the "logic" to which Wasserman Schultz has apparently signed on: http://cltampa.com/politicalanimal/archives/2014/05/13/dws-and-other-florida-dems-bash-florida-gop-for-passing-abortion-bills#.U3YTtF6fP-s


Critics argued that the bill would confer “personhood” on all unborn babies, from the moment of conception, perhaps leading to a ban on abortions and many forms of birth control.

In other words, "We can't allow anything to happen which could in any conceivable way recognize the a pre-born baby's humanity, even if it means that fathers or others can get away with killing an unborn child the mother has chosen to carry to term."

So much for the term "pro-choice." Thomas Lifson at American Thinker money line: "The mind boggles at this war on women." Indeed. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/perhaps_the_most_despicable_thing_debbie_wasserman _schultz_has_said_yet.html

As usual, the press is doing its utmost to ensure that a leftist's outrageous comment doesn't get noticed by the general public. A Google News search on "Wasserman Schultz abortion" (not in quotes) at 9:45 a.m. ET returned 11 items, none of which are establishment press outlets.

If a Republican or conservative said something like this ... oh, you know the rest.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/05/16/debbie-wasserman-schultz-senseless-and-wrong-punish-men-who-slip-women-a#ixzz31vY25ODG


comments

whatever happened to it's the WOMAN's choice???

..

The War on women has two battlefields:
A condemned rapist and killer of women in Oklahoma receives a lethal dose of drugs, and the liberals response is to light candles and weep as they debate the inhumanity of a nation that believes in capital punishment.
If an innocent child of an innocent mother is killed due to a fraudulently administered abortion pill the liberals official response is, "SO WHAT"

..

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the most vile and repugnant amongst Democrat women. I'd like to know, in her infinitesimal mind, how she defines a man slipping an abortifacient to an unsuspecting woman as limiting reproductive rights. Does she not care about women who may want their babies? What about their protections?

..


Debbie Wasserman Schultz: ‘Senseless’ and ‘Wrong’ to Punish Men Who Slip Women Abortion Pills

So Debbie, is the Feminist Mantra of "My Body, My Choice" no longer operative? Or only for women who refuse to perform the Progressive "Holy Sacrament" of abortion?

..

Slip an abortion pill into her drink. That's fine. Just don't call her "bossy". Because that would mean you don't have respect for her.

[Jolie Rouge]

NY abortion bill would allow lethal injection in third trimester for any reason
Written by Allen West on May 22, 2014

As you may recall, we recently brought to light the 2012 HHS report on “Child Maltreatment” that lists data for physical abuse to the unborn. Naturally, abortion isn’t included in that report. But if dismemberment or shooting poison through the heart isn’t physical abuse, I don’t know what is.

According to lifenews.com, New York legislators are considering passage of the Women’s Equality Act, which would allow late-term abortions for virtually any reason. A group of pro-abortion Democratic State Senators continue to push for abortion-expansion, despite polls showing the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers oppose it. The bill has grisly consequences.

Too many Republicans admonish us to just not talk about social issues. They say it’s a losing point. However, should we just cower away from what is wrong? I also find it quite perplexing that this piece of legislation has the ironic title of “Women’s Equality Act,” because what I’m about to describe is not about women’s equality.



The legislation advocates that throughout the second trimester, late abortions can be completed by dismembering the developed unborn child, even when they can feel pain, pulling the baby out piece by piece until the mother’s uterus is empty. After the abortion, the abortionist must reassemble the child’s body to ensure nothing has been left inside the child’s mother.

In abortions that take place later in pregnancy, which would be legalized in New York by the abortion-expanding Women’s Equality Act, often babies are killed by sliding a needle filled with a chemical agent, such as digoxin, into the beating heart, before being delivered.

Sorry folks, the content of my character don’t allow me to support such a heinous and barbaric practice. I do not support abortion as a means of birth control.

New York State Right to Life commented on reintroduction of the so-called “Women’s Equality Act” and pointed to another problem. The 10th point of the Women’s Equality Act, pushed for by Governor Cuomo, would change New York law to open the doors for non-doctors to perform abortions, and to allow abortions in the third trimester for any reason.

Current law already allows abortion at any point that a woman’s life is in danger, but the 10th point would change that to include any “health” reason as well. The key distinction is that “health” was defined in the 1973 court case Doe v. Bolton, providing a definition so broad that it far overreaches physical, or even mental, well-being.

I fully support women’s reproductive health: research for curing uterine, cervical, ovarian, and fibroid tumors and cancers. What I will never support is the taking of an unborn life — basically killing babies.

This is not part of our “better angels” as President Abraham Lincoln described, this is radical and what type of person could support something like this? Oh yes, I remember — it was a State Senator from Illinois who promoted legislation that if a baby survived an abortion, it still deserved to die. What monster would sentence babies to death – in other words, infanticide? Is that what we are becoming?

No I’m sorry. I cannot stop standing up and talking about this. If that means hate mail, so be it, but I will certainly not sacrifice my principles, values and character to allow murder.

(By the way, as you’re reading this, I’m probably in the air heading from Dallas to Michigan where this evening I’ll be speaking at the Jackson County (Spring Arbor) Lincoln dinner. I’ve had a fantastic five days in Texas, beginning with spending the weekend with my best friends, Simeon and Alma Terry. Simeon went to Kansas State with my wife Angela and I was the best man in his wedding back in Manhattan, Kansas. I truly enjoyed going to church with them at Antioch Christian Fellowship there in Corinth where they live. I miss my home church, Community Christian, back in South Florida but it was a fantastic service focused on the four fundamentals of prayer – be Specific, make Time, pray with Energy, and find a Place (STEP).)

I am certainly praying for my country.

http://allenbwest.com/2014/05/ny-abortion-bill-allow-lethal-injection-third-trimester-reason/#o0czygWdxQqCzQJw.99

[Jolie Rouge]

Media, Planned Parenthood Hype New ‘Abortion Romantic Comedy’
By Katie Yoder | June 2, 2014

Here’s a new oxymoron, even for the liberal media: abortion comedy.

Opening this Friday, writer-director Gillian Robespierre’s “Obvious Child” tells the story of an aspiring young comedian, Donna Stern, who has an abortion after a one-night stand. The film, which focuses on “self-discovery and empowerment” and the “realities of independent womanhood,” garnered endorsements not only from Planned Parenthood and NARAL, but also the media as an “abortion romantic comedy.” The film starring Jenny Slate (“SNL,” “Parks and Recreation”) caught the attention of distributor A24 after premiering at the Sundance Film Festival earlier this year.

As The New York Times’ Megan Angelo revealed, Robespierre’s film is a reaction against movies like “Juno” and “Knocked Up,” where unplanned pregnancies resulted in positive birth stories. According to Robespierre, those films became a “misrepresentation of women on screen when it came to unplanned pregnancy” and “just didn’t feel true.” In other words, she couldn’t imagine letting her infant live. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/movies/jenny-slate-in-gillian-robespierres-obvious-child.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2GN3wdfqbA&feature=player_embedded

The “abortion romantic comedy,” according to Angelo, “represents a turning point for how the procedure [abortion], pregnancy and women are depicted on film.” Or, in other words, “Donna does not consult the man (played by Jake Lacy) who impregnated her during a one-night stand” and “never wavers on her course of action.” Angelo also noted how “the cameras also accompany her into the clinic” during the abortion. Sounds inspirational!

But "Our film is not an agenda movie in any way," actress Jenny Slate emphasized to Rolling Stone. "The whole point is that women have this procedure, and they should have it safely, and it's a part of life.” A part that happens to come with a huge dollop of death, but never mind.

The film certainly fit others’ agendas though. Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards tweeted about the “incredibly funny, honest & smart movie about abortion” while Planned Parenthood itself tweeted, “So excited!” But then, RH Reality Check revealed that, “the filmmakers worked closely with Planned Parenthood to depict an abortion experience accurately and positively.”



Not to be left out, NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue also turned to Twitter to invite followers to join her for a “special screening” on June 2.

Obviously, lefty media types were enthusiastic. Variety’s Peter Debruge described the film as “uproarious” and “refreshingly honest” while Salon’s Prachi Gupta gushed over the “honest, real, and raw comedy.” Moviefone’s Drew Taylor added “it’s hilarious, it’s heartbreaking, and it’s totally genius.” Fem site Bustle’s Alicia Lutes gushed, “I think the modern romantic comedy we’ve been so desperately waiting for, has arrived.”

Indiewire’s Beth Hanna called the movie “heartwarming, romantic and very funny” and, in a similar review, Indiewire’s Eric Kohn detailed how “‘Obvious Child’ glides along with the sustained goofiness of a polished studio-produced comedy…except it's a lot funnier, and more honest, than any female-centric cinema produced in Hollywood today.”

To entice an audience, feminist blog Jezebel offered 50 screening passes to the “abortion rom com.” Jezebel’s Madeleine Davies “loved it” and Slate’s “incredibly raw and moving performance.” Defy Media’s Crushable offered the same screening opportunities as writer Jenni Maier advised that the film was “not only the best abortion rom-com I’ve ever seen, but it’s also the best movie I’ve seen so far this year.”

The film joins the ranks of other media-hyped abortion films like “After Tiller,” which also premiered at Sundance.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/katie-yoder/2014/06/02/media-planned-parenthood-hype-new-abortion-romantic-comedy#ixzz33X9M3DvZ



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/katie-yoder/2014/06/02/media-planned-parenthood-hype-new-abortion-romantic-comedy#ixzz33X90ZeM4

[Jolie Rouge]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/10312039_712743112105652_7405443373231065108_n.jpg

NOW President proposes killing unborn babies as a way to reduce infant mortality...
it doesn't get much more ridiculous than that!

[Jolie Rouge]

“Twin reduction”: Our pro-death, vanity abortion culture in a nutshell http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2011/08/10/twin-reduction-our-pro-death-vanity-abortion-culture-in-a-nutshell/

Just pretend this dead lion is a human baby, and then you won’t be so upset

Matt Walsh/ 810 Comments

Behold, the face of evil:

http://i7ihxhmvf855rr1qui4ol2j.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/o-KENDALL-JONES-SAFARI-KILLS-facebook-1024x512.jpg
KENDALL JONES SAFARI KILLS

I’m sure you’ve seen this young woman’s photos plastered all over Facebook.

Her name is Kendall Jones. She’s a cheerleader, hunter, and, according to the internet, a vile scumbag who deserves to die a slow and painful death.

You see, Ms. Jones goes on trips to Africa where she hunts big game, like elephants and lions. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/03/african-wildlife-hunting-cheerleader-kendall-jones-targeted-by-critics/ Sometimes she tranquilizes them for the sake of scientific research, or to treat injuries on the animal , and sometimes she kills them. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kendall-jones-the-19yearold-cheerleader-from-texas-provoking-worldwide-fury-over-hunting-pictures-on-her-facebook-page-9578836.html Kendall defends herself by saying that the hunts serve two purposes: 1) feeding hungry villagers, and 2) conservation.

I also think they make for some pretty cool Facebook photos, but that’s just me. At least, I prefer these over the pornographic garbage that clutters half of my newsfeed on a daily basis.

It’s funny that, of all the filth and depravity online, it takes an image of a dead zebra to really rile people up.

Even more peculiar: a million babies are killed every year in this country, yet that has never sparked this level of popular outrage. There are petitions circulating to have Kendall banned from both Facebook and the entire continent of Africa. The condemnation is near-universal, and the anger directed at her is unlike anything I’ve seen in a very long time.

Herein lies my struggle, America. This is why I’m such a cynic. I just can’t take your outrage seriously. We’re surrounded by death and evil, but we don’t complain until someone shoots a cheetah? That seems a bit arbitrary, if you ask me.

Many of the liberal blogs having a meltdown over Kendall Jones are the same ones that spent a week hailing Emily Letts, who filmed her own abortion. ‘What kind of monster smiles after killing something?’ they say about the woman posing with a tranquilized rhino, but not about the woman giggling while an abortionist executes her baby. http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/05/07/this-is-my-positive-abortion-story/

The whole dynamic is just deranged. Has the world ever known a culture as delusional as ours? Has a society ever been so confused? I’m no anthropologist, but I have a hard time believing that any previous civilization could have developed such a perverse mix of hedonism and puritanism. We’re told we shouldn’t bat an eye when a network sitcom centers an entire episode around teenage gay sex, http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/11/06/glee-chris-colfer-absolutely-expects-opposition-to-sex-themed-episode/ but at the same time, we should be thin skinned and innocent to the point where news channels have to deliver disclaimers before airing the word ‘redskins.’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/06/19/msnbc-host-joy-reid-warns-viewers-before-a-clip-involving-redskins/

It’s utterly bizarre. If I was a space alien I’d be so completely confounded by it all that I’d probably cancel my plans to enslave the human race, thinking that something in Earth’s water supply must be driving its lifeforms insane.

Because that’s what this is: insanity. It’s not even that our morality is inverted or reversed – even that would be too logical. What we are experiencing is nothing short of moral anarchy. Now that we’ve made a mockery of virtue and a religion of death, we are left with nothing to be truly outraged about. So we become the violent answer to the man who gets home and releases his pent up anger by kicking his dog; we get home and release our pent up righteous indignation by killing the man who kicked his dog.

Personally, I don’t care about Kendall’s hobby either way. I don’t hunt myself, but I’m not opposed to it. I probably wouldn’t shoot a lion (except in self defense, should that occasion ever arise), but her actions are legal and helpful to both the townspeople she feeds and the local economy she stimulates. She says she doesn’t kill young animals or mothers with babies, and she claims that her actions help preserve the balance in the African wildlife population.

Fine. I don’t know enough about the issue to call her bluff or verify her claims. Yes, she could be full of it, for all I know. I’m sure she’s not the devil incarnate, and I’m sure she’s doing more productive things with her free time than 90 percent of her college peers, but that doesn’t mean she’s right. And if you’re pro-life — as in pro-human life — and you also oppose Kendall Jones, but you spend much more time protesting the mass killing of babies than you do the hunting of African mammals, then I respect your opinion and your consistency. Carry on. Godspeed.

I suspect, however, that only a very small percentage of the anti-Kendall Jones mob falls into this category.

The rest, by any reasonable estimation, are either in favor of, or largely indifferent to, the murder of babies. They see the killing of ‘endangered species’ as the greatest act of evil, second only to verbally opposing gay marriage, and perhaps now third to calling an overbearing female “bossy.”

It’s not that they value animal life over human life, necessarily. They are humans themselves, and I’m sure, given the choice, they’d gladly choose their own existence over even the most endangered of sea turtles. They also generally recognize the Holocaust or 9-11 to be tragedies far more serious than a wildfire that wipes out half of a forest’s native squirrel population.

They might pretend to be in touch with nature, but most of them aren’t quite keeping it real like this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A_JPcBwYGmo

(continues)

[Jolie Rouge]

I’m not saying that they don’t sincerely love animals, I’m just saying that it’s easier to love animals. It’s easy to be pro-animal rights, which is why so many people are. It’s difficult to stand for human life. That’s really the only rhyme or reason to what is rejected and embraced in our culture. We take the easy route. No matter what. Convenience is the key — convenient values, convenient virtues.

I can sit here all day and write poems about the beloved walrus or the hallowed dolphin, but my pro-animal stance will likely never require anything of me. I don’t have to do anything. I’ll never be forced to sacrifice for the spotted owl or the gray wolf. A humpback whale will never show up at my door and ask me to take care of it for the next 18 years. A Siberian tiger probably won’t come to my house one day and demand that I change my entire life to accommodate it. I might go out and adopt a pet, but that is always a deliberate act. Babies, on the other hand, happen when we have sex. But sex is fun, and babies are hard work. Babies intrude on our fun. They ruin it. This, and only this, is the reason why we defend the slaughter of children while weeping over the remains of a murdered leopard.

The leopard never caused us any trouble, but the babies were downright cumbersome. Indeed, we value human life, just not human life that needs to be protected and preserved at any great cost to our comfortable lifestyle.

As a eugenic society, we teeter always on the edge of psychopathy. Our acceptance of infanticide eats away at us, under the surface, inside our souls. We fear the loss of our own humanity, so we lash out every once in a while, and pour out all of our tempered moral outrage onto someone — anyone — who can give us a nice, safe outlet. Whether it’s a hunter, or a supposedly ‘homophobic’ reality TV star, or an actually racist NBA owner, we unload our vast reserves of righteous fury, reveling in the opportunity to prove to the world and to ourselves that we still have standards. We still care. We still feel.

It’s all a charade, of course. And the Indignity DuJour will soon be replaced by something else, as we flutter quickly from one puffed up atrocity to the other, never stopping long enough to ask any serious questions about it. Never letting the noise die down quietly enough to have a real conversation about anything.

I wish for once that we would stop, just for a moment, and contemplate a few things.

We are very sad that a woman killed a lion — why?

Because the lion is endangered?

Because it’s ‘majestic’ and ‘beautiful’?

OK, why does that matter? There are other beautiful things, there are other animals. We do we need these? Who cares if they are exterminated from the face of the Earth?

Because it will upset the ecosystem? OK, but who cares about the ecosystem? Why does the ecosystem matter?

Because all living organisms depend upon it? OK, but now we’re back at the original question — who cares about the living organisms?

And why do we instinctively place some organisms over others? Why aren’t you upset when I kill cockroaches, but you would be if I killed a bald eagle?

What is life, anyway? Why does it matter? What makes it valuable? What makes some life more valuable? Why is your neighbor more significant than the tree in his front yard?

Why do we weep when a life is taken? Why do we usually celebrate when a life is born? Why are you here? Why was the lion here? Why should the lion be treated with dignity? Why should you be treated with dignity?

If you answer these questions, you can only come to one of two conclusions: it’s all meaningless and nothing matters, or life is inherently sacred, especially human life.

Confront these mysteries and you will either end up a suicidal nihilist or a pro-life zealot.

There’s really no room in between, despite our fevered desire to find one.

So I’m not telling you what to think about these things, I’m only telling you that you need to think about them.

And, once you do, maybe your priorities will change a little bit.

http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/07/03/just-pretend-this-dead-lion-is-a-human-baby-and-then-you-wont-be-so-upset/#uevkfAW6715jUMt0.99

comments

this is a rant my family often hears me go off on - but I'm not nearly as entertaining as you are! My FB feed is filled every day with posts by people who grieve the mistreatment of animals - some wanting to kill anyone who hurts an animal. Like you, I shake my head when I think of all the children who need homes and all the babies that are aborted. You hit the nail on the head when you point to the warm fuzzies people get by being outraged over animals. It makes them feel like a compassionate person and doesn't require any energy on their part - like maybe being a foster parent or adopting would. Another aspect of this is the spiritual one. Romans tells us once we deny the Creator the next step is to worship the creation. (Followed by teen rebellion and homosexuality spreading - but those are topics for another day!) As a society, it is not acceptable to publicly worship the Creator so en masse, worshiping the Creation has filled the void. The public schools religion of "environmentalism" and Disney's characters that are really humans trapped in animal bodies has helped with the brainwashing.

..

I would never kill a lion, but the girl probably saved 30 with the price she paid to kill the one. She probably fed an entire village with meat from the harvest. I mean, what the hell difference does it make that you can go out and catch a fish and fry it up for dinner, but killing a lion is worse because it's pretty to look at?

I just don't get it.


..

Clearly people have their priorities mixed up if they are concerned more about the legal death/killing of an animal then they are over the killing/death of a fetus. I don’t condone both acts however I do think that one deserves to be protested against more than the other, especially in the case of taking human life because someone may be too lazy or deem themselves unfit for parenthood. In the grand scheme of things, shouldn’t a human life be worth more than that of an animal?


http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/07/03/just-pretend-this-dead-lion-is-a-human-baby-and-then-you-wont-be-so-upset/#uevkfAW6715jUMt0.99

[Jolie Rouge]

At Cal-Santa Barbara, professor shoves pro-life demonstrator, then school rips pro-lifer in 'apology'
Dan Calabrese on Friday March 28th, 2014

http://static.caintvnetwork.com/551ac102absignstealer.jpg

How understanding of the Founding Fathers to even grant free speech to "evangelical types."

First watch the confrontation on video. It's at 2:29 that the liberal professor, Mireille Miller-Young, shoves the pro-life demonstrator, who is 15 years old by the way. She does it again at 2:57. Be warned that the liberal professor also spews some profanity before the shoving takes place.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sLemX9QtUa4

Now what you see here is astonishing enough, but it's nothing compared to the "apology" offered by Michael D. Young, the university's vice chancellor for student affairs. Question: Does anyone remember how to simply say "my bad" when it clearly is? Not this guy, I guess. Here is the full text of the "apology" (via National Review http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373957/ucsb-smears-pro-lifers-after-professors-attack-pro-life-student-alec-torres ) with particularly egregious parts in bold:



March 19, 2014

Dear Students:

Over the past several weeks, our campus has been visited by a number of outside groups and individuals coming here to promote an ideology, to promulgate particular beliefs (at times extreme beliefs), or simply to create discord that furthers a certain personal agenda. Some passionately believe in their causes, while others peddle hate and intolerance with less-than-noble aims.

Whatever the motives and goals, the presence of such people and groups on campus can be disruptive and has the potential to draw us into the kind of conflict that puts at risk the quality of exchange of ideas that is fundamental to the mission of our university.

What is happening now is not new: evangelical types have been visiting UCSB and university campuses since time immemorial. What we see at UCSB today is simply the most recent generation of true believers, self-proclaimed prophets, and provocateurs.

During the past few weeks, UCSB has been visited by various anti-abortion crusaders. Some have been considerate and thoughtful in promoting their message; others have openly displayed images that many in our community find distressing and offensive.

We have also seen earnest and thoughtful religious missionaries, and we have seen proselytizers hawking intolerance in the name of religious belief. As a consequence of interactions with the more extreme of our visitors, students have expressed outrage, pain, embarrassment, fear, hurt, and feelings of harassment. Moreover, I have received requests that the campus prohibit the peddling of “fear,” “hate,” “intolerance,” and “discord” here at UCSB.

Those of you who know me are aware that I have strong views on the matter of intolerance. You also know that I hold equally strong views on the sanctity of free speech. If you have heard me speak at Convocation or at anti-hate events, or if you have seen me officiating at the Queer Wedding, you know that my message on both counts is clear. Recent events lead me to believe that this message bears repeating.

First, the principle of freedom of expression resides at the very foundation of our society and, most certainly, at the foundation of a world-class university such as UC Santa Barbara. Freedom and rights are not situational: we either have freedom of speech or we do not. We cannot pick and choose which views are allowed to be aired and who is allowed to speak. If that were the case, then only those in charge — those holding power — would determine who gets to speak and whose views are heard.

Second, freedom is not free. The price of freedom for all to speak is that, at times, everyone will be subjected to speech and expression that we, ourselves, find offensive, hateful, vile, hurtful, provocative, and perhaps even evil. So be it! Law and policy ban only an extremely narrow band of speech and expression-”yelling ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre,” for example, and child pornography. The price we pay to speak our own minds is allowing others to speak theirs, regardless of how oppositional their views are to our own. Our Founding Fathers-all white men of privilege, some even slave owners-got it right when designing the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Having firmly stated my support for freedom of expression, I hasten to follow with a lesson my mother taught me when I was a small child, a lesson that has remained with me the rest of my life and that I relay to our entering students every fall at Convocation. My mother taught me that just because you can say or do something doesn’t mean that you should. Civility plays an important role in how we choose to exercise our right to expression. We all have the right to say odious things, to display offensive slogans and placards, and to hurt and disrespect groups and individuals that disagree with us. The question is: should we? Should we engage in these behaviors just because we can or because they serve our political, religious, or personal agendas?

At UCSB, our students have proven that we are better than this. While it has not always been easy, time and again UCSB students have demonstrated that they can disagree about the critical issues of our time — fundamentally and passionately but within a framework of humanity and civility, respecting the dignity of those whose views they oppose. Time and time again, UCSB students have demonstrated that they understand their role in defining the character and quality of this campus community — revealing their unwillingness to lower themselves to the tactics of those whose agenda comes wrapped in intolerance and extremism.

And now we are tested once again, outsiders coming into our midst to provoke us, to taunt us and attempt to turn us against one another as they promote personal causes and agendas. If we take the bait, if we adopt negative tactics and engage in name calling, confrontation, provocation, and offensive behavior, then they win and our community loses. While urging you to engage with differing ideas and opinions in a civil manner, I also want to remind you that you have the option not to engage at all. You do not have to listen to, look at, or even acknowledge speech or expression that you find provocative or offensive. The Arbor Mall is a free speech area, as is the area in front of the University Center. If you do not want to be confronted by certain materials or expressions, you should avoid the free-speech areas when you expect that you might encounter them, or simply ignore them. I promise you the visitors will hate that.

And, finally, if you think demonstrators, activists, or proselytizers are violating the law, report them to the UC Police Department. If you think they are violating campus policies, report them to the Office of Student Life (OSL). Similarly, if you feel harassed or think you are being subjected to offensive speech or material as an involuntary audience, please contact the Office of Student Life immediately. Katya Armistead, Associate Dean of Student Life and Activities, can be reached at 805-893-8912. If you do not reach her, someone at the general OSL number (805-893-4550) will be able to relay your message to her. The campus regulations address UCSB’s free speech policies further:http://www.sa.ucsb.edu/Regulations/campus_activities.aspx<http://www.sa.ucsb.edu/Regulations/campus_activities.aspx> .

What I am suggesting may not be easy, and it may feel more satisfying (at least for the moment) to lash out. (My mom often reminded me that doing the right thing is difficult.) If you feel that you must respond, hold a peaceful, thoughtful, civil, and dignified counter-demonstration, and show how students engage intellectually and politically at UCSB.

Sincerely, Michael D. Young Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs


UPDATE: The College Fix is reporting that Miller-Young has avoided jail time in her assault of the 16-year old prolifer, an attack that left red scratches and marks on the teen’s arms. Instead, a judge is requiring that she attend anger management classes, participate in community service, and pay $493 in restitution to the teenager who was the victim of her assault. http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/18854/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thecollegefixfeed+%28The+Coll ege+Fix%29

[Jolie Rouge]

At Cal-Santa Barbara, professor shoves pro-life demonstrator,
then school rips pro-lifer in 'apology'
Dan Calabrese on Friday March 28th, 2014

continued ....

Wow. At no point in the "apology" does this guy even address the fact that a member of his own faculty physically assaulted a campus visitor after stealing her sign from the "free speech area." But then, why would he when he clearly establishes throughout his missive that the "provocateurs" were at fault for the entire incident because, though they had the right to exercise their free speech, they should not have done so.

Welcome to free speech on Campus America, circa 2014. It really is this bad.

http://www.caintv.com/at-cal-santa-barbara-professor

comments

As a law enforcement officer in the state of CA, I highly recommend that the female whose sign was stolen by this professor should file robbery charges with the Santa Barbara PD, not the campus cops, against the professor!

Robbery, as defined by the CA penal code, is theft from a person by force or fear. When the professor assaulted the girl who was trying to get her sign back from the prof and her goons, she changed what would have been a mere theft to a robbery, a misdemeanor to a felony. All aspects of the crime of robbery are complete, and better yet, were all captured on camera.

..

Not sure how the laws work in Calif, but here we would arrest the professor for battery against a minor. Shoving the protester is battery, and since she is only 15, that makes her a child. The statutes are fairly cut and dry. Can you imaging what would have happened if it were a conservative prof and a pro-abortion protester? The Gestapo would have already shut the place down.

..

Technically speaking, whenever a felony has been committed, the agency with jurisdiction can file charges with or without the cooperation of the victim. We do it all the time when one gang banger shoots or beats down another gang banger and they end up in a hospital (mandated reporters). The problem in this case is that unless the victim contacts law enforcement, and there are no mandated reporters involved (technically speaking, all teachers in CA are mandated reporters for child abuse, but here the mandated reporter is also the suspect), law enforcement would likely not even know it happened. Also, the cases where we have uncooperative victims rarely do well in court.

Additionally complicating this incident is that the SBPD and the UCSB Police have overlapping jurisdictions (I believe) and it would likely automatically get deferred to the university cops, who unfortunately have a much more political job than the local PD does. University LE agencies are controlled heavily by university administrators who want at all cost to avoid having the university look bad in the news. Thus the cops there have to walk a much finer line than those working elsewhere. Where I would definitely have charged her with a felony, or two, and slapped some bracelets on that prof, then given her a ride to the county hotel (jail), they likely would be told to go the misdemeanor route, minimizing the charges and thus the negative appearances on the nightly news.

..

I have to disagree. I hate abortion as much as you do. But if she tried to press charges it would only start an unnecessary flame war (not to mention that the judge would probably rule in the professor's favor). It would probably be best if she didn't whine about it and took it calmly. Maybe release a statement saying she forgives the professor and feels sorry for her, because that would make a HUGE statement about the nature of pro-lifers (especially as compared to anti-lifers). Trying to fight the communist media is an exercise in uselessness and futility

..

University of California at Santa Barbara Associate Professor Mireille Miller-Young was charged with one misdemeanor count each of theft, battery and vandalism in the March 4 incident according to FoxNews.

..

I find it distressing that he also seemed to feel the need to specifically point out that our Founding Fathers were all white men and many owned slaves. WTH does that have to do with anything? All it does is show he is a racist. Free speech areas? This is America we are a FREE SPEECH AREA, every inch of this country is a free speech area. Talk about a violation of the 1st Amendment!

Earlier this year feminist professor Mireille Miller-Young, who is employed by University of California-Santa Barbara (UCSB), attacked a group of pro-life demonstrators, injuring a 16-year old boy.

An enraged 38-year old Miller-Young accosted the teen in an attempt to steal his sign. She initially pleaded not guilty, but recently changed her plea to no-contest. Her colleagues at UCSB have gone to great lengths to cover for Miller-Young, making a case that is as far-fetched as Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee claiming that she is a freed slave.

FOX News reports on the excuse laden letter submitted on official university stationary, in all likelihood written on taxpayer paid for resources and time, that makes the claim that Miller-Young’s actions were the result of “the cultural legacy of slavery.” The ludicrous claim was made by another feminist at UCSB, Professor Eileen Boris.


Prof. Boris seeks clemency for her colleague, stating, “she was at the stage of a pregnancy when one is not fully one’s self fully, so the image of a severed fetus appeared threatening.”“If she appears smiling on camera,” Prof. Boris continues, “she is ‘wearing the mask,’ that is, she is hiding her actual state through a strategy of self-presentation that is a cultural legacy of slavery.”

Never mind that slavery ended nearly 149 years ago. Professor Boris believes that the bullying Miller-Young deserves clemency for injuring a teenager in her attack because of it.

Other professors wrote similar letters in support of Miller-Young using excuses ranging from her pregnancy to claims that she was simply being smeared as an ‘Angry Black Woman’ to excuse her violent attack.

It looks like the Left is all against bullying, unless that bullying comes from an adult Leftist professor and is levied at a pro-life teenager.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/08/18/wait-till-you-hear-the-excuse-for-feminist-professors-attack-of-a-pro-life-teen/

[Jolie Rouge]

http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/560768-just-something-more-consider-abortion-debate.html

[Jolie Rouge]

Woman Pens Chilling Open Letter to the Baby She Plans On Aborting Later This Week
By Emily Hulsey (5 hours ago)

Three days ago, Reddit user scaredthrowingaway stirred up the internet world with a post titled, “I am getting an abortion next Friday. An open letter to the little life I won’t get to meet.” http://www.reddit.com/user/scaredthrowingaway

The letter reads:


Little Thing:

I can feel you in there. I’ve got twice the appetite and half the energy. It breaks my heart that I don’t feel the enchantment that I’m supposed to feel. I am both sorry and not sorry.

I am sorry that this is goodbye. I’m sad that I’ll never get to meet you. You could have your father’s eyes and my nose and we could make our own traditions, be a family. But, Little Thing, we will meet again. I promise that the next time I see that little blue plus, the next time you are in the same reality as me, I will be ready for you.

Little Thing, I want you to be happy. More than I want good things for myself, I want the best things for the future. That’s why I can’t be your mother right now. I am still growing myself. It wouldn’t be fair to bring a new life into a world where I am still haunted by ghosts of the life I’ve lived. I want you to have all the things I didn’t have when I was a child. I want you to be better than I ever was and more magnificent than I ever could be.

I can’t do to you what was done to me: Plant a seed made of love and spontaneity into a garden, and hope that it will grow on only dreams. Love and spontaneity are beautiful, but they have little merit. And while I have plenty of dreams to go around, dreams are not an effective enough tool for you to build a better tomorrow. I can’t bring you here. Not like this.

I love you, Little Thing, and I wish the circumstances were different. I promise I will see you again, and next time, you can call me Mom.

-h

As you probably expected, the post has generated a massive response from those on both sides.

On one hand, many felt that her decision is a responsible one and shows a realistic understanding of the demands of raising a child. From Blue Nation Review: http://bluenationreview.com/im-getting-abortion-next-friday-reddit-user-writes/


Three-fourths of women seeking abortions say they can’t afford a child. The same number of women say that, “having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner,” according to the 2005 book Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health.

On the other hand, many were put off not just by the woman’s decision to have an abortion, but by her approach, which they felt was hypocritical. One commenter on the Blaze’s coverage of the story stated: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/10/i-am-getting-an-abortion-next-friday-womans-heartbreaking-open-letter-to-the-baby-she-says-shell-abort/


She says she wants her baby to be happy, but what she wants is for that baby to be dead and no longer be a problem for her. There is absolutely nothing noble about abortion.

Many readers brought up adoption as an alternative, and some even offered to adopt the child themselves.

Regardless of one’s stance on abortion, it is a serious issue that shouldn’t be treated lightly.

What do you think about this woman’s decision and the letter she wrote to her unborn child?

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/187234-woman-pens-open-letter-fetus-plans-aborting-later-week/

[Jolie Rouge]

Woman Pens Chilling Open Letter to the Baby She Plans On Aborting Later This Week
By Emily Hulsey (5 hours ago)

Three days ago, Reddit user scaredthrowingaway stirred up the internet world with a post titled, “I am getting an abortion next Friday. An open letter to the little life I won’t get to meet.” http://www.reddit.com/user/scaredthrowingaway

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/187234-woman-pens-open-letter-fetus-plans-aborting-later-week/

Media Enjoy ‘Heartwarming,’ ‘Powerful’ Letter from Mom to Baby She Will Abort
By Katie Yoder | October 14, 2014

As if we needed more evidence that pro-choice means one choice.

An anonymous Reddit user, scaredthrowingaway, posted to the online news platform a letter to her unborn baby whom she plans to abort. In the note entitled “I am getting an abortion next Friday. An open letter to the little life I won't get to meet,” the young mom wrote, “I am sorry that this is goodbye. I'm sad that I'll never get to meet you.” The media, in typical fashion, celebrated the letter as “heartwarming,” “powerful” and “brave.”

In his response, Jezebel’s Mark Shrayber gushed over the “brave, honest letter.” He explained how, “Even when [abortion is] the right choice, there's can be a lot of pain involved.” http://jezebel.com/woman-writes-brave-honest-letter-to-the-baby-she-will-1645277207 “Beautiful and heartbreaking,” he concluded.

Similarly, The Huffington Post’s Nina Bahadur deemed the note a “powerful open letter.” And “this Reddit user,” she hyped, “is not alone in wanting to share her abortion story.”

Cosmo’s Lane Moore highlighted the “heartwarming letter” as “an important reminder to people who are anti-abortion of the myriad thoughts and emotions many women experience when preparing for an abortion.”

Pro-lifers, she said, “often accuse women who choose to have abortions of being emotionless robots who have not given any thought to the decision they are making (something anyone with half a brain knows that is untrue).”

After reading the “incredibly brave post,” Blue Nation Review’s Sarah Burris went into attack mode. http://bluenationreview.com/im-getting-abortion-next-friday-reddit-user-writes/


“The right loves to create a narrative of young girls who want to go to a rock concert on an evening and not give birth so instead they just have a late-term abortion,”


“They like to pretend it’s all selfish women who want to kill a fetus and if they only force women to listen to a heart beat or see a blurry photo of a speck that she’ll somehow be able to afford it, or have the capacity to protect the child from an abusive father.”

But wait. Hasn’t the pro-abortion left just spent months telling us there’s nothing even “difficult” about the choice to abort? http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2014/08/17/washpost-op-ed-argues-abortion-advocates-should-insist-abortion-never-im

That the right to abort is “a deeply affirmative value?” http://www.mrc.org/articles/wapo-blogger-abortion-deeply-affirmative-value

That ending an innocent life makes a boffo plot line for a sitcom http://newsbusters.org/blogs/katie-yoder/2014/09/05/feminists-vs-fox-star-abortion-perfect-topic-sitcoms
and the centerpiece for a date-night romantic comedy? http://newsbusters.org/blogs/katie-yoder/2014/06/18/i-saw-obvious-child-it-didn-t-help

Pro-lifers were a bit more consistent in their responses, including The Blaze's Billy Hallowell http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/10/i-am-getting-an-abortion-next-friday-womans-heartbreaking-open-letter-to-the-baby-she-says-shell-abort/ and LifeNews.com's Steven Ertelt, http://www.lifenews.com/2014/10/10/womans-heartbreaking-letter-to-her-unborn-baby-im-aborting-you-next-friday/ who described the letter as “heartbreaking” and “heart-wrenching.”

In response to the myriad shows of support on Reddit, the anonymous mom later posted:


“Thank you, thank you, thank you. It is hard. I feel sick and awful for not wanting something that, at the same time, I want so badly. But I feel better knowing I'm not alone and now that I see it all written out, there's less madness bumping around in my head, which is nice. Thank you, again.”

But, dearest Reddit user, know that there is another choice you can choose – and that you will not be alone, should you choose it: life.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/katie-yoder/2014/10/14/media-herald-heartwarming-powerful-letter-mom-baby-she-will-abort



But, Little Thing, we will meet again. I promise that the next time I see that little blue plus, the next time you are in the same reality as me, I will be ready for you

But like a river ... once this opportunity has passed - it never returns. The child being aborted will never be duplicated. Even if she has other children at a later date, this child will have been forever lost.

[Jolie Rouge]

This story is so completely absurd, it's almost unbelievable.
But it just shows you hypocritically skewed liberals are.
They want "personhood" granted for chimps.

http://allenbwest.com/2014/10/liberal-lunacy-animal-rights-group-seeks-personhood-chimpanzees/

but human babies are just a "clump of cells" unless or until the mother deems otherwise ?

[Jolie Rouge]

Dear Woman Who’s Getting an Abortion Tomorrow
Oct. 16, 2014 12:23pm - Matt Walsh

Dear Friend,

I read your letter.

It was to the unborn child you plan to abort tomorrow. You posted this note anonymously on Reddit for the world to see, so I can’t be sure that you even exist or that your letter was sincere. This could be some kind of sick joke. You could be a pro-choice propagandist, fabricating another story to help get rid of the ‘taboo’ surrounding infanticide. I don’t know. But I’m going to assume, right now, that this is all legitimate. I’m going to speak to you like you are real, like you are really planning to do this, because whether you are or not, everything I’ll say to you also applies to any woman in the same position.

I tried my best over the past week to figure out a way to contact you personally. I guess that was a futile effort to begin with. You didn’t post your name or contact information, which makes sense. The good folks at Reddit are apparently deleting any responses on your thread that don’t consist entirely of “congrats” and “atta girl,” so I couldn’t reach out to you that way, either. I’m left with this as my only option.

Before I go further, I think we should revisit what you wrote. I’m sure you remember, but here it is:



Little Thing:

I can feel you in there. I’ve got twice the appetite and half the energy. It breaks my heart that I don’t feel the enchantment that I’m supposed to feel. I am both sorry and not sorry.

I am sorry that this is goodbye. I’m sad that I’ll never get to meet you. You could have your father’s eyes and my nose and we could make our own traditions, be a family. But, Little Thing, we will meet again. I promise that the next time I see that little blue plus, the next time you are in the same reality as me, I will be ready for you.

Little Thing, I want you to be happy. More than I want good things for myself, I want the best things for the future. That’s why I can’t be your mother right now. I am still growing myself. It wouldn’t be fair to bring a new life into a world where I am still haunted by ghosts of the life I’ve lived. I want you to have all the things I didn’t have when I was a child. I want you to be better than I ever was and more magnificent than I ever could be. I can’t do to you what was done to me: Plant a seed made of love and spontaneity into a garden, and hope that it will grow on only dreams. Love and spontaneity are beautiful, but they have little merit. And while I have plenty of dreams to go around, dreams are not an effective enough tool for you to build a better tomorrow. I can’t bring you here. Not like this.

I love you, Little Thing, and I wish the circumstances were different. I promise I will see you again, and next time, you can call me Mom.

-h

The media has gushed over your abortion vow. In fact, a very dense woman at Cosmopolitan went so far as to call your letter “heartwarming.”

Heartwarming.

Something tells me that your heart doesn’t feel too warm right now.

I felt the sadness and hesitation in your words. The fact that you published it in the first place proves that you are not completely sure about what you are planning to do. I think you want to be talked up or talked down. You want to hear what people have to say about it, which is the only reason anyone ever posts personal things on the internet.

I felt the uneasiness.

I felt the sense of loss.

I felt the desperation.

And I felt the love.

I did. I really did.

You love your child. You want your child to be happy. You said that yourself, and I believe you.

But this is not the way, friend. This is not the way.

Who am I to say this to you? Nobody, really. I’m nobody. I’m nothing. But your child is someone. You child is something. Your child is real and he is here and he is itching to meet you and thank you for giving him life. A life that he will only have once and never again.

If you want your baby to have what you didn’t have and feel the joy that you never felt, now is the time to hand him that gift. Now is the only time. There will not be another. You said that you cannot be the baby’s mother right now, but you are the baby’s mother right now. There is only now, friend, and this is a moment that will never be repeated. You can choose death or choose life, but there will not be a redo or a second chance. This is it. This is everything.

You can have other kids, but you will never have this one again. This one, with her vast potential and incredible promise. She is here now, she is living now, and there is a place in this world for her.

I’m sorry that I keep switching between “her” and “him.” You didn’t mention the gender — I guess you don’t know — so I’m using whatever pronouns are necessary just to avoid calling it “it.” It’s not an “it,” it’s so much more than that. She or he is a human being, and as you said, the two of you share a reality. And that is a reality that can never be improved by the death of the child you love. There is no way that your life or anyone’s life could be made better by killing the innocent. It’s impossible.

( continues ... )

[Jolie Rouge]

I know some other Reddit users commented and told you that you won’t regret this decision. They are lying to you. Don’t listen to them. Listen to your heart. The same heart that prompted you to write that letter and feel those thing for your child. Listen to it, not the broken and deceitful masses who want to claim your baby’s death as a victory for their side of an argument. Your little one is just a pawn to them. They don’t love him like you do. They don’t love him at all. But down to the very pit of your soul you feel something for your baby that you’ve never felt for anyone.

Trust that feeling.

Oh, there’s fear there, sure. That’s part of it — so is the panic, the uncertainty. I’m not discounting any of that, but I am saying that extinguishing the life in your womb will not defeat the fear or settle your anxious mind. This is not a solution, I promise you. There is not a single thing that can be made better, nor a single problem that can be solved, by aborting your baby.

Yes, it’s true that I’m a man so I cannot fully understand what it means to carry a child to term. I watched my wife go through a tough and physically taxing pregnancy, and I’ve never felt so helpless or useless in my life. I don’t know why the Lord saw fit to give the cross of pregnancy to women rather than men, but I can only assume that it’s because women are stronger and more patient. I know this is true in my wife’s case, and I know it is true in yours. You have the power to make it through this, all the way to the end, and that is a decision that you will never regret.



.
OK, I know we don’t have much time so I think I should stop rambling and get down to business. I mentioned your story on Facebook last week and asked if any of my Facebook friends could offer resources to help you. Well, they gave more than that. Numerous people came forward offering to adopt your child. These are real people who are eager to open up their homes and their hearts to your beautiful little one. If you email me ([email protected]), I can put you in touch with them.

Otherwise, there are hundreds of wonderful organizations out there that will help you make an adoption plan for your child. I don’t know where you live or which organization you would prefer, but I plugged “place a child for adoption” into Google and instantly found dozens of great options.

Maybe you can tell that I’m not an expert when it comes to dealing with women in the midst of crisis pregnancies. I might be saying and doing all of the wrong things here. I don’t know. Luckily, there are people out there who are far better equipped. Check out this link with contact information for various pregnancy centers that are dedicated to providing necessary services to women in your situation. There is help out there. You don’t have to go through this alone. Check these links. Send me an email. If you’re worried about maternity expenses, there are people and charities who can help you with that.

An abortion clinic will take your child’s life and kick you out the door. But pregnancy centers and Christian charities will walk with you, step by step, and never leave your side. There are tons of places like that, but here’s a good place to start.

You do not deserve harsh judgment or scorn from anyone if you aren’t ready to raise a child. There is no shame in placing your child for adoption. Quite the opposite — it would be truly heroic and admirable for you to make the choice to give your baby to a family that is prepared to care for him. Your child can still have a good life. It isn’t too late. He can still live. He can still be happy. There are families out there who want so badly to embrace him and make sure that he has the life he deserves — a life of hope and joy and love. That’s the life you want him to have, and you can still give it to him.

Listen, think past tomorrow. Think about a few months from now. A few years from now. Think about the future. If you abort your baby, it will be a future in a world utterly deprived of her presence. She will be gone. She will not exist. There will be a great, painful void. Where there should have been her laughter, there will be silence. She will be missing from everywhere, never to walk the Earth. You could search every corner and crevice of the universe, and she will not be there. In her place will be an absence, an emptiness, only a dream of what could have been.

Or.

Or it can be a future blessed by her life. It can be a world shaped, in whatever way, small or large, by her actions and her choices. Where there could have been silence, there can be her voice. Where there could have been a void, there she will be. And even if she is in the care of another family, you can always know that she is out there, she is living, and all of her successes, her joys, all of the people she touches, all of the good she does on this planet — it will all be thanks to you, thanks to the decision that you made. No matter where she goes and what she does, she will be yours. She will be a part of you, and you will be a part of her.

Think about that future.

Just think about it.

You don’t have to go through with this tomorrow. It’s such a tragic irony that the people who support abortion call it ‘pro-choice,’ yet so often, the women who get abortions do so because they feel they have no choice.

So what I’m saying, friend, is that you do have a choice. There is another way.

I don’t expect to convince you with this letter. I only want to give you a few things to consider. So rather than showing up for your appointment at the clinic tomorrow, hold off. Step back. Go for a walk. Take a drive.

Think about the future.

Think about your little one.

There is still time to change your mind.

You still have a choice.

Please, give your child a chance. Choose life.

Sincerely,

A fellow parent

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/dear-woman-whos-getting-an-abortion-tomorrow/

[Jolie Rouge]

Actress Ellen Barkin: ‘Fetuses,’ ‘Infants’ Not People Because They ‘Cannot Talk’
By Katie Yoder | November 8, 2014

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/katie-yoder/2014/11/08/actress-barkin-fetuses-infants-not-people-because-cannot-talk

[Jolie Rouge]

U.S. appeals court upholds restrictive Texas abortion law

AUSTIN, Texas - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday upheld the main provisions of a restrictive Texas abortion law including one requiring clinics to have certain hospital-grade facilities, a regulatory hurdle critics said was designed to shut down abortion providers.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, permitted the 2013 law to be applied across the state, although it exempted the application of some provisions to a clinic in the southern city of McAllen. The exemptions had been granted by a lower court on the grounds that its distance from other clinics could cause an undue burden on women in that area.

In its decision, the court said the state's measures were intended to protect women's health.

Under the "ambulatory surgical center" requirement, clinics must meet a set of building standards ranging from widening halls to having facilities for certain surgeries.

Texas, the largest Republican-controlled U.S. state, has been at the forefront of advancing regulations restricting access to abortion.

Abortion opponents welcomed the ruling. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, said the decision would protect women from substandard abortion facilities. "I am proud to have both supported this law in the legislature and defended it in the courts," Paxton said.

Abortion rights advocates have said such requirements are unnecessary, especially when an abortion is medically induced rather than performed through surgery. "Once again, women across the state of Texas face the near total elimination of safe and legal options for ending a pregnancy, and the denial of their constitutional rights," said Nancy Northup, president and chief executive of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The court overturned large parts of an August decision by U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel, who said the ambulatory center requirement was unjust and had no compelling public health interest.

Before the law went into effect, there were about 40 licensed abortion facilities in Texas, a state of about 27 million people. That clinic number is expected to drop to about eight with the ambulatory surgical center requirement in effect, Yeakel cited evidence as saying.

The law also requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles (50 kms) of their clinics.

The Texas Hospital Association, representing more than 400 hospitals, called the requirement unnecessary because women experiencing abortion complications can go to an emergency room to be treated, and did not need their abortion doctor hospital staff for this to happen.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-appeals-court-upholds-restrictive-texas-abortion-law/ar-BBkSLJ9?ocid=ansnewsreu11

[Jolie Rouge]

Supreme Court blocks Texas abortion-clinic rules
Published June 29, 2015

The Supreme Court acted Monday to keep Texas' 19 abortion clinics open, amid a legal fight that threatens to close more than half of them.

The justices voted 5-4 to grant an emergency appeal from the clinics after a federal appeals court upheld new clinic regulations and refused to keep them on hold while the clinics appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court order will remain in effect at least until the court decides whether to hear the clinics' appeal of the lower court ruling, not before the fall.

The court's decision to block the regulations is a strong indication that the justices will hear the full appeal, which could be the biggest abortion case at the Supreme Court in nearly 25 years.

If the court steps in, the hearing and the eventual ruling would come amid the 2016 presidential campaign.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have allowed the state to move ahead with regulations requiring abortion facilities to be constructed like surgical centers. Doctors at all clinics also would be required to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.


The clinics said enforcing the new regulations would lead to a second major wave of clinic closures statewide since the law was enacted in 2013. Texas had 41 abortion clinics in 2012; 19 remain.

The admitting privileges requirement already is in effect in much of the state. Stephanie Toti, a lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Rights who is representing the clinics, said some clinics that closed because doctors lacked admitting privileges might be able to reopen.

While the clinic operators said they were relieved by the court's action, supporters of the state law criticized the order. "Women and babies are being denied protections with the Supreme Court blocking pro-life legislation," said Lila Rose, president of Live Action, an anti-abortion advocacy group.

The regulations would have left the state with no clinic west of San Antonio. Only one would have been able to operate on a limited basis in the Rio Grande Valley.

The Supreme Court also is weighing an appeal from Mississippi, which is seeking to enforce an admitting privileges requirement that would close the last abortion clinic in the state. A different three-judge panel of the same federal appeals court, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has blocked the Mississippi law.

In November 2013, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that four justices probably would want to review the constitutionality of the Texas regulations. Last year, the high court prevented enforcement while the case was on appeal to the 5th Circuit.

Backers of the regulations say they are common-sense measures intended to protect women. Abortion rights groups say the regulations have only one aim: to make it harder, if not impossible, for women to get abortions in Texas.

The case could be attractive to the justices because it might allow them to give more definition to the key phrase from their last big abortion ruling, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in 1992. States generally can regulate abortion unless doing so places "an undue burden" on a woman's right to get an abortion.

Monday was the 23rd anniversary of the Casey ruling.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/29/supreme-court-blocks-texas-abortion-clinic-rules/