Never Again?

I was watching "Band of Brothers" last week--the episode where the Nazi death camp is discovered.

They (the Nazis) were massacring tens of thousands of people, in a camp located right near their community, right under the noses of those in the community--and they did NOTHING.

After they liberated the camp, the 101st Airborne conscripted the nearby townsfolk to carry all the bodies out of the death camp and to bury them. The people were aghast as they carried out their grisly duty; unaware that such atrocities could occur, right under their noses. They had no answer when interrogated as to why they continued to allow those atrocities to occur.

At some of those death camps, there were even bizarre experiments in dismemberment, disfugurement, and other forms of torture conducted, sometimes on live prisoners.

After WWII, the solemn pledge that arose was the phrase, "NEVER AGAIN!"

NEVER AGAIN! would the world allow such atrocities to occur against a defenseless group of people.

NEVER AGAIN! would the world stand by and do nothing in the face of what is surely evil.

And now, eighty years have passed, and there are now 'death camps' scattered all over America, centered mostly in minority urban centers--these death camps are massacring hundreds of thousands of babies every year. These death camps are also known as 'abortion 'clinics,' most commonly known as "Planned Parenthood" clinics. At a goodly portion of these death camps, bizarre and horrific dismemberment and disfigurement of their victims take place for later experimentation and other uses, sometimes perpetrated on born-alive victims.

These atrocities take place right under our noses. And the powers that be do nothing. People literally whistle past the graveyard. Even our own United States Senate, charged with the Constitutional Duty to protect the Right to Life, today refused to remove the mechanism through which these atrocities are funded and are allowed to continue. Even after the atrocities, thanks to the Center for Medical Progress, had been documented on film ad nauseum, the abject cowards in the United States Senate refused to lift a finger to keep these atrocities from continuing.

We who individually and collectively refuse to defend the defenseless can no longer lay claim to live in a blessed nation. I cannot fathom a Creator who would continue to bless his creation for disrespecting and wantonly desecrating that which was made in His own image, and that we were charged to protect.

A moment of Judgment is no doubt coming... one in which our Creator will force US to view and to confront the horrors which we have wrought, and one in which which we will singularly and collectively have to answer the question, "What did YOU do to defend the defiling of My creation?"

I'm afraid my answer will be, "Not enough Lord...not enough."

Never again?

On Dalliances With The Devil...

It seems that the White House is now dictating what Catholic Doctrine really means…and Cardinal Dolan isn’t liking it:

The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand Catholic teaching and so, taking a cue from its own definition of religious freedom, now has nominated its own handpicked official Catholic teachers.

Welcome to the almighty church of Obama… Mr. Hussein, presiding.

They told the Church what to do in Maoist China… Communist Russia, Cuba… and even killed those who wouldn’t comply and staffed churches with their ‘state approved’ clergy. Obama is a Marxist. That’s what he does. What kills me is that the liberal Catholic priests and bishops actually SUPPORTED Obama, being the useful idiots that they are, even though it was widely known that Obama would be the most pro-abortion president–ever, and that he voted THREE TIMES AGAINST the born-alive protection act. But they thought their dalliance with the devil would be worth it if they could attain their unattainable ‘social justice’ nirvana fix here on earth. The same folks who brought you “liberation theology” are the same folks who have run our seminaries for too long now; the same element of folks who tolerated pedophiles in the priesthood; the same folks who not only turned a blind-eye to Marxism but encouraged it.

Even given the above, the Catholic church acts surprised–shocked–I say– when the openly Marxist President Obama starts telling them how to run things. This is a direct result of the Catholic Church worrying too much about establishing a non-attainable ‘heaven on earth’ via ‘social justice;’ via their support of Obamacare and other neo-socialist endeavors, and not enough about what was and should continue to be their true mission– the salvation of and preparation of souls for eternal life with Christ in Heaven.

I have had contact with some ‘priests’ who during the 2008 elections knew of Obama’s pro-infanticide predilections, but chose to support him anyway because of the ‘greater good’ that would supposedly result from his proposed social programs.

It was regrettably the ‘useful-idiot’ Catholic vote that helped Barack Hussein Obama first achieve presidential power.

As a Catholic, it will be a sad day, indeed, should the Catholic vote allow Obama a second term. It will not be a day that I left the Catholic church; rather, it will be a day that the Catholic Church left me.

A Positive Message in Hip-Hop

Too often, "hip hop" songs emphasize predatory sex and glorify street gangs and crime.. but this is a hip hop song with a different message.. as strong a pro-life message as I have ever seen, reportedly based on the true story of the artist:



Like everything else in this world, music can be utilized as a force for evil, or for good. The positive message embraced by this song and video gives me great hope that the pro-life message will reach those who are most drastically in need of it. A whole generation of great minds and awesome potential is far too often being flushed down a sink or placed in a garbage dumpster.

180

This is undoubtedly the best set of pro-life arguments ever laid out in one missive; many of them mirror my own that I’ve made over the years. This video, although long (33 minutes) is well worth the view:

Obama Hearts Dead Babies.

The title of this post may sound like so much hyperbole, but what other conclusion can one come to?

The American Principles Project (APP) Wednesday criticized the Obama administration for allowing the elimination of $600 million for Community Health Centers while protecting funding for Planned Parenthood as part of last week’s budget deal agreed to by Congress and the White House.

Touting Planned Parenthood as a key women’s health-care provider, Democrats held firm to their promise not to allow cuts to the nation’s largest abortion provider. Community Health Centers, which do not perform abortions, provide health services to the needy — including mammograms and pre- and post-natal care.

According to the American Principles Project last year Community Health Centers performed 320,000 mammograms while Planned Parenthood did none.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/13/white-house-protects-abortion-provider-allows-cuts-to-community-health-centers/#ixzz1JRYVzxjY

Unlike the blatant lie that Planned Parenthood president Cecele Richards told, Planned Parenthood performs no mammograms. Aside from a few ancillary condoms given out, abortion is, by and large, Planned Parenthood’s Business.

Remember, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted three times AGAINST the Born Alive Protection Act. In other words, Barack Hussein Obama was quite OK letting a live-aborted baby perish on a gurney or in a trash can, rather than offer it life support.

Obama, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is the most pro-abortion, pro-dead-baby President we have ever had. Period.

His latest act of fealty toward the nation’s most prodigious killer of developing human beings, ostensibly in the name of ‘women’s health,’ to the detriment of organizations that actually provide services geared toward women’s health, is added testament to Obama’s ghoulish psyche.

What Hath Roe v. Wade Wrought?

A legacy of over 50 million lives, snuffed before a breath could be taken.. and sometimes after a breath was taken:

Johnson learned last week that Philadelphia prosecutors believe Gosnell frequently delivered late-term babies alive at his clinic, then severed their spines with scissors, and often stored the fetal bodies — along with staff lunches — in refrigerators at the squalid facility. Tiny baby feet, prosecutors said, were discovered in specimen jars, lined up in a macabre collection.

"Did he do that to mine? Did he stab him in the neck?" Johnson asked at her North Philadelphia home. "Because I was out of it. I don't know what he did to my baby."

Gosnell was charged last week with killing seven babies born alive and with the 2009 death of a 41-year-old refugee after a botched abortion at the clinic, which prosecutors have called a drug mill by day and abortion mill by night. The medical practice alone netted him at least $1.8 million a year, much of it in cash, they say.

But the women going there were merely exercising their freedom of choice, right?

When Davida Johnson walked into Dr. Kermit Gosnell's clinic to get an abortion in 2001, she saw what she described as dazed women sitting in dirty, bloodstained recliners. As the abortion got under way, she had a change of heart — but claims she was forced by the doctor to continue.

"I said, 'I don't want to do this,' and he smacked me. They tied my hands and arms down and gave me more medication," Johnson told The Associated Press.

The AP tries to mitigate the horror of abortion by blaming it on the abortion protesters:

Johnson, then 21, had a 3-year-old daughter when she became pregnant again. She said she first went to Planned Parenthood in downtown Philadelphia but was frightened away by protesters.

"The picketers out there, they just scared me half to death," Johnson, now 30, recalled this week.

Someone sent her to Gosnell's West Philadelphia clinic, at the Women's Medical Society, saying anti-abortion protesters wouldn't be a problem there. She said she paid him $400 cash.

But really, what is the difference between what Gosnell does and what other abortion providers do on a regular basis? It comes down to a difference of only around 6 inches. You see, while most late-term abortion providers wait until the baby is partially delivered up to the neck before inserting a pair of scissors into the baby's skull, Gosnell did the exact procedure, only a minute or two later after the baby was fully delivered.

Either way presents a heinous end; grand larceny committed against human beings of their chance, nay their right to live their lives; the only offense committed by the infant being its mere existence.

Contrary to popular belief, examples of man's inhumanity to man do not exist exclusively on battlefields, gulags, nor death camps. Man's inhumanity to man is illustrated every day of the year, right within our own neighborhoods, right under our noses, to the most innocent and the most vulnerable among us.

As Mother Teresa of Calcutta once said, "It is a very great poverty to decide that a child must die that you might live as you wish."

The Culture of Death: More Like the Nazis Than You Think

I have often been excoriated by the pro-abortion industry crowd for comparing the practice of abortion to the genocide practiced on the Jews by the Nazis in WWII. In their apoplexy, they claim that there is no comparison between the two heinous practices, and attempt to invoke Godwin's Law because I even attempted to make such a seemingly hyperbolic comparison.

But is the comparison with the practice of the killing of innocent developing human beings that different from what was practiced by the likes of Adolph Hitler, Josef Mengele, or for that matter, Pol Pot?

Many have heard the stories of the Nazis making bar soap from the bodies of the Jews that were exterminated by them.

Well, consider this:

Neocutis' key ingredient known as "Processed Skin Proteins" was developed at the University of Luasanne from the skin tissue of a 14-week gestation electively-aborted male baby donated by the University Hospital in Switzerland. Subsequently, a working cell bank was established, containing several billion cultured skin cells to produce the human growth factor needed to restore aging skin. The list of products using the cell line include: Bio-Gel, Journee, Bio-Serum, Prevedem, Bio Restorative Skin Cream and Lumiere. But Vinnedge is calling for a full boycott of all Neocutis products, regardless of their source.

Yep. using the remains of aborted developing human beings to make moisturizing skin lotion.

Given that according to legend, the Nazis utilized the remains of murdered Jews to manufacture bar soap, the actions of the culture of death as shown in this story suggest that it wouldn't be such an unfair comparison after all, would it?

Well, as Paul Harvey would say, "Hold the phone!"

"No human soap"? This is true, but misleading. Though there is some evidence that soap was made from corpses on a very limited experimental scale, the rumored "mass production" was never done, and no soap made from human corpses is known to exist.

Notwithstanding of the fact that millions of Jews (as well as Poles, Gypsies and others) suffered and died at the hands of the Nazis, the Nazis didn't actually make soap from human remains.

Thus, to compare the makers of this hand lotion to the Nazis is indeed an unfair comparison.

These ghouls are far worse.

(Via Gateway Pundit)

Regarding The Right to "Choose."

A libertarian acquaintance of mine and I share a number of views in common; we are both for smaller and less intrusive government, as well as the right to pursue happiness in ways of our own choosing.

Where my libertarian acquaintance and I part ways is the question of abortion, and a woman's so-called right to choose whether or not to maintain the developing life inside her womb. Although this acquaintance is personally pro-life, she appears to think that it is not necessarily the role of government to dictate whether a woman must carry a baby to term.

I wrote,

"I can get behind much of what you believe in.

Except for the abortion part.

You see, my right to do what I want with my fist ends with your face.

And the right of what a person can do with his or her body ends when that person's choice interferes with another innocent person's God-given right to live, no matter what station in life or life stage one finds oneself. (read it in the preamble to the Constitution)

The woman's so-called right to "choose" is not a question of freedom. It goes much deeper than that. It's a question of one's fundamental right to exist. When that is called into question, the right to "freedom" is moot."

Yes, one has a right to engage in the behavior that may or may not produce a life. But one does not have a right nor necessarily the freedom to escape dealing with the consequences of one's choices, especially when that choice impinges on another's fundamental right of existence.

***UPDATE***

My correspondent wrote back:

I am personally a pro life person! That is why I say freedom of choice - instead of prochoice- the pro choice folks believe pro choice means their choice – I disagree- I believe pro choice means that I am freed to choose life and I DO! Listen to last weeks show and you will hear me say so!

To which I responded,

Yes, one has a right to engage in the behavior that may or may not produce a life. But one does not have a right nor necessarily the freedom to escape dealing with the consequences of one's choices.

She went on...

I agree Leo- we just can not stop people from doing things they want to do- I wish I could but that is God’s job not mine! I answer to God and so will they!

To which I responded

No, we cannot stop people from doing things they want to do, but we CAN hold them accountable.

We have laws that codify against murder. We have laws that codify against robbery and crimes against person and against property.

Why should the unborn, developing human being be unprotected by the rule of law? Why should their status and the protections afforded them be any different than any other human being?

Are the unborn 3/5ths of a person? Are you comparing the unborn to slaves, with no rights, especially that of the most fundamental right of all, that being the right to exist?

You say you are pro life.

I don't believe you.

Either you believe that the developing fetus is a human being, and is entitled to unalienable rights, or you don't.

Let's be honest, here.

...to be continued?

***UPDATE***

My correspondent wrote back:

Leo-

I told where I stand if you are going to call me a liar- we have nothing else to discuss.

Have a good evening.

To which I responded,

Betty Jean, what I am saying is that you are being intellectually dishonest.

You say you are pro life, a position which, by definition, holds that the developing fetus is indeed human; yet you are unwilling to assign human rights to that which you ostensibly deem human.

Realize that saying, "I'm pro-life, and I wish everyone was, but I understand that others will make different decisions," is not in the same league as saying, "I like coconut on my donuts, and I really wish everyone liked coconut on their donuts, but I understand that others may not." The former carries with it real life and death implications, while the latter is merely a preference.

Realize that when one says one is pro-life, that means that one truly understands that it is indeed a separate and distinct life developing within the womb. Yes, a LIFE.

Of course, saying that you're pro-life but simultaneously recognize other women's right to "choose" may score you points by those on both sides of the issue who haven't taken the time to parse the illogicality of what you stated. But realize that by saying what you're saying, you have effectively negated your pro-life stance by its very definition. You have in effect made a non-statement.

Yes, Betty Jean, I am challenging your beliefs by identifying the inconsistencies inherent in that which you state you believe.

I understand that can be an uncomfortable feeling.

But if I can see the inconsistency in your stated beliefs, it is my contention that others in your audience can also see that inconsistency, which may lead them to question your credibility.

What I'm asking is that you take a step back, and take a good, long, hard look at your stated belief regarding abortion.

Don't rationalize it. I mean, take an honest look at it.

Again, if you can't be honest with me, at least be honest with yourself.

Consider this an exercise in constructive criticism.

-Leo-

...developing.

Happy Birthday..

..what may have been..
Happy Birthday

Forgive them, they know not what they do...

Or at least I hope they don't.

What happens when liberalism mixes with religion is nothing less than Frankensteinian; a grotesque, satanic abomination that masquerades as good intentions and good works:

Caritas Christi, the health-care agency administered by the Archdiocese of Boston, has joined in a successful bid for a government contract to provide health services for low-income clients. The program requires coverage for abortion, sterilization, and contraception.

State officials on March 13 awarded the contract for low-income coverage to Commonwealth Family Health Plan, a joint venture set up by Caritas Christi and the Centene Corporation, a Missouri-based company which currently has no facilities in Massachusetts. The Commonwealth Family Health Plan program will be centered around the Catholic hospitals of the Caritas Christi network.

The involvement of the archdiocesan health-care system in a program that provides abortions drew protests from Boston Catholic activists. The Catholic Action League called the contract “a significant defeat for the pro-life movement, inflicted not by secular society, but by the Catholic Church in Boston.”

Oh, of course, the liberal neo-marxists who have infiltrated the middle levels of the Church heirarchy will always have an "ends justify the means" explanation at the ready:

Last week, in a response to such criticism, Cardinal Sean O'Malley asserted: “Caritas Christi will never do anything to promote abortions, to direct any patients to providers of abortion or in any way to participate in actions that are contrary to Catholic moral teaching and anyone who suggests otherwise is doing a great disservice to the Catholic Church.”

Which, of course, is nothing more than a bald-faced lie that could have come from Lucifer himself:

However, the cardinal's claim was contradicted by representatives of Commonwealth Care, who assured state officials that their program would provide "ready access" to all of the services mandated by the government program, including abortion.

Under the Commonwealth Family Health Plan system, abortions will not be performed at the Caritas Christi hospitals. But women who wish to procure abortions will be given a telephone number to call for information on where abortions are performed, and, if necessary, transportation to those sites.

Cardinal Sean O'Malley, with all due respect, you're full of shit. I have nothing but disdain for you and the rest of your neo-marxist komrades in Roman collars who have turned your back against GOD and His flock and toward your new god called "government" to create your sick sense of utopia here on Earth. For that reason, you saw it fit to vote for and to advance the agenda of the biggest pro-abortion senator, ever; again, to advance your twisted vision of "social justice," which, to the detriment of our civilization, has no application to the most innocent and helpless among us, the unborn. And you continue the work of Satan to this day, with your abject rejection of the sanctity of life in your unholy march toward your advancement of his agenda of death.

Cardinal Sean O'Malley, you had better be thankful that it is not I who will be dispensing ultimate justice; for if it was, you surely would spend eternity rotting in hell. It is because of traitors of the cloth such as yourself that I and many other formerly devout Catholics have left the fold.

Many shepherds will ruin my vineyard and trample down my field; they will turn my pleasant field into a desolate wasteland. It will be made a wasteland, parched and desolate before me; the whole land will be laid waste because there is no one who cares (Jeremiah 12:10).

"Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture!" declares Yahweh. Therefore this is what Yahweh, the God of Israel, says to the shepherds who tend my people: "Because you have scattered my flock and driven them away and have not bestowed care on them, I will bestow punishment on you for the evil you have done," declares Yahweh. "I myself will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them and will bring them back to their pasture, where they will be fruitful and increase in number (Jeremiah 23:1-3).

Nuff said.

Great Pioneers in the Field of Eugenics...

1. Adolph Hitler


Thought it would be a good idea to create "the master race." Thought that the "Jewish Problem" could be handled via their extermination.

2. Josef Mengele (a/k/a "The Angel of Death")

Mengele selects incoming Jews for labour or extermination in the gas chambers and conducts pseudoscientific medical experiments on inmates, principally infants, young twins, dwarfs and those with genetic abnormalities. He is given his own laboratory block, independent financing and a medical staff.

He is also supported by the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Genetics and Eugenics at Dahlem in Berlin and sends specimens to the institute director, Dr Otmar von Verschuer, his former supervisor at the University of Frankfurt and an expert on the genetics of twins.

Mengele investigates ways to increase human fertility. He tries to find a genetic cause for the disease 'noma' (a rare gangrenous condition of the face and mouth), studies physical abnormalities and contagious diseases, conducts experiments with wounds, and attempts to change the colour of inmate's eyes to blue with injections of chemicals directly into the eyeball. His chief interest is twins.

3. Margaret Sanger:


Founder of Planned Parenthood. Along with being an anti-semite and supporting the genocide of the Negro race, of her most famous sayings,

"It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them."

And:

"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

And last, but certainly not least,

4. San Fran Nancy Pelosi, who famously said yesterday that "contraception is good for the economy."

Her interview with Stephanopolous:


No apologies, eh, Nancy? Somehow that doesn't surprise me. That's the way to help the economy. Make sure folks are never born. That's worked so well in Europe.

But hold your head up proud, Ms. Pelosi. You're in (in)famous company.

A question.

What is the difference between this, and this?

Just wondering.

Bad News for the Pro-Death Crowd...

From here:

LONDON (AP) — Doctors have given a woman a new windpipe with tissue grown from her own stem cells, eliminating the need for anti-rejection drugs.

And eliminating the need to kill embryos, as well.
For years now, the pro-death crowd's mantra is that we need embryonic stem cell research to cure diseases. The Democratic Party Platform, to this day, reads:

Pursue embryonic stem cell research

Pres. Bush has rejected the calls from Nancy Reagan, Christopher Reeve & Americans across the land for assistance with embryonic stem cell research. We will reverse his wrongheaded policy. Stem cell therapy offers hope to more than 100 million Americans who have serious illnesses-from Alzheimer's to heart disease to juvenile diabetes to Parkinson's. We will pursue this research under the strictest ethical guidelines, but we will not walk away from the chance to save lives and reduce human suffering.

Interestingly, that little tidbit is located the part of the DNC platform that deals with abortion.

In other words, the whole embryonic stem cell debate is a move by the pro-infanticide faction of the democrat party to keep the abortionist's foot in society's door.

The dirty little secret, the gorilla on the dining room table of which no one dares speak, is that embryonic stem cell research has shown absolutely no promise toward curing disease, as embryonic stem cells have been proven time and time again to be unstable in nature, at times even causing cancer-like symptoms in subjects.

If the pro-baby killing crowd is to find justification for their ghoulish predelictions, they'll have to look elsewhere. Embryonic stem cell research ain't gonna cut it.

Barack Hussein Obama's Support of Infanticide

Just How Strong are McCain's Committments?

Dan Stover picked up on this quote from Hugh Hewitt's blog:

Discussing the possibility of a pro-choice veep is fine, and perhaps even excellent politics. Actually picking a running mate who is pro-choice would end the momentum that has been shifting to McCain, and almost certainly destroy the prospect of his winning. Conservatives who have begun to recognize the danger posed by an Obama presidency to the national security of the United States and put their shoulder to the wheel would melt away by the millions as they would see the effective evisceration of the party's pro-life commitment.

If McCain is solidly pro-life, and if upholding the sanctity of life is paramount among his values, then why would he even entertain the notion of nominating a pro-abortion person for Veep???

Would the life issue really be sacrosanct in a McCain presidency? Or would it be "negotiable" or "on the table," to fulfill his need to "reach his hand across the aisle," much like his "commitment" to border security, or to the First Amendment? A choice of a pro-abort for a Veep would render his need to "get along" with the other side to be nothing less than pathological. At any rate, McCain's VP choice will go a long way toward making his true commitment to the life issue clear, one way or the other.

The notion that McCain is merely considering such a pick, if true, flies in the face not only of all things conservative, but of the dignity of humanity itself. This leads one to take a step back in evaluating just who is the real John McCain, and just who or what is he willing to compromise to meet his ends?

Obama's Life Values...

Not are Barack Hussein Obama's economic policies in line with infamous socialist luminaries of the 19th and 20th centuries, he seems to have a similar disregard for human life, voting against a bill in the Illinois Senate that was identical in language to a Federal bill that would extend protections to infants born alive during abortions.

The documents prove that in March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the IL state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the "neutrality clause" (copied verbatim from the federal bill) was added to the state BAIPA, with Obama voting in support of adding the revision. Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4.

The bill that Chairman Obama killed, as amended, was virtually identical to the federal law; the only remaining differences were on minor points of bill-drafting style. To see the language of the two bills side by side, click here. (Be sure to read the whole article)

Basically, the crux of the proposed bill was thus:

(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be (25) fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate (26) protection under the law.

Obama couldn't even find it within himself to protect a live, vulnerable infant.

The good LORD said it better than I could ever hope to say:

15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.

16 By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (Matthew 7: 15-20)

And the Truth will set you free!

Score one for Life, and one against Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood:

(CNSNews.com) - South Dakota may enforce a law that requires doctors to provide pregnant women with a written statement saying, "the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being," a federal appeals court ruled last Friday.

In Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit voted 7-4 to strike down a 2005 preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for South Dakota.

The injunction had prevented a statute - requiring abortion providers to tell women, in writing, that an abortion would terminate the life of a "living human being" - from taking effect. The decision by the appeals court reversed the injunction and remanded it to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The lawsuit, filed by Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, required the court to consider whether the definition of human being should include "the unborn human being during the entire embryonic and fetal ages from fertilization to full gestation."

South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds and Attorney General Larry Long, representing the state, argued against Planned Parenthood in the suit, providing evidence that the embryo or fetus is "whole, separate, unique and living."

The court's ruling said, "Planned Parenthood submitted no evidence to oppose that conclusion."

The court cited a bioethicist's affidavit, submitted by Planned Parenthood, which stated that "to describe an embryo or fetus scientifically and factually, one would say that a living embryo or fetus in utero is a developing organism of the species Homo Sapiens which may become a self-sustaining member of the species if no organic or environmental evidence interrupts its gestation."

My dear readers, when faced with the Truth of what an abortion is, the pro-abortion, pro-death lobby has no moral leg to stand on. Unlike a pile of wood, which can become a chair, a table, or part of a home, a developing embryo can become only more and more of what it already is--a human being.

Congratulations to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for having the cajones to face up to that truth.

Baby survives abortion, lives...

From here:

Finley Crampton really shouldn't be here. Although his parents would have loved another child, they knew their baby could inherit a life-threatening kidney condition – and they couldn't take the risk.

After all, their first son had died of the condition and the second was born with serious kidney damage.

So when Finley's mother, Jodie Percival, became pregnant while on the Pill, she and her fiance Billy Crampton, 35, made the agonising decision to abort this child.

'Deciding to terminate at eight weeks was just utterly horrible but I couldn't cope with the anguish of losing another baby,' said Miss Percival, 25.

However, Finley had other ideas. And some time after the operation, Miss Percival felt a fluttering in her stomach.

Eventually her doctor sent her for a scan – and she discovered she was 19 weeks pregnant.

The child had survived the abortion and thrived in the womb. 'I couldn't believe it,' said Miss Percival. 'This was the baby I thought I'd terminated.

'At first I was angry that this was happening to us, that the procedure had failed.

'I wrote to the hospital, I couldn't believe that they had let me down like this. They wrote back and apologised and said it was very rare.'

But a week later, another scan confirmed that this baby had kidney problems too, like the couple's previous children.

Miss Percival carries a gene which triggers multicystic dysplastic kidney – which causes cysts to grow on the kidneys of an unborn baby.

Her first baby, Thane, had lived for only 20 minutes after she was forced to deliver him prematurely.

Her second son, Lewis, now 20 months, was born with a similar condition. He survives on one kidney.

However, doctors told the couple from Sutton-in-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, that this child was likely to survive, so they decided he deserved a chance.

And in November, Finley was born three weeks premature, at 6lb 3oz.

He had minor kidney damage but is expected to lead a normal life.

'I knew if that operation hadn't failed he wouldn't have been there,' said Miss Percival, a hairdresser.

'I just couldn't believe that this child had got through it all and looked so perfect.

Young Finley would have definitely looked "less than perfect" now, had he not escaped the scalpel.

Another Tarryl Clark Smackdown...

This time from Representative Ron Hamilton, with the kicker being,

It appears Minnesota Assistant Senate Majority Leader Tarryl Clark is a little upset over the fact that I brought her feelings regarding nursing home funding to your attention. She says I’m “misleading” you, “distorting the record,” and “muddying the waters.”

Actually, what I gave you was her direct quote — “nursing homes don’t really count” in their (the Senate DFL) definition of health care.

You can’t get any more crystal clear than that. These words come from one of the most powerful people in the Legislature (second in command in the Minnesota Senate), which is why I was extremely disappointed in her comments. I’ve spoken to Senator Vickerman on this topic and he agrees with me on the need to help our nursing homes and long-term care facilities.

Read, as they say, the whole thing.

BTW, Rep. Hamilton, if you're looking for any more Tarryl Clark Zingers, we got a million of 'em!

I guess we should not be surprised that Ms. Clark would treat eldercare as a burden. After all, look from whence she and others of her ilk come. The very same party that treats vulnerable developing humans as "burdens;" dare I say, "punishments."



Why should the elderly be any different in their eyes?

FINALLY.

Colorado, a weary nation will turn its eyes toward you.

Unborn Personhood Amendment Makes Colorado Ballot
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
May 30, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - An amendment to the Colorado Constitution that defines a "person" as "any human being from the moment of fertilization" will go before state voters in the Nov. 4 general election.

Amendment 48, entitled "Definition of a Person," was approved for a statewide vote on Thursday by Colorado Secretary of State Mike Coffman, whose office validated 103,000 signatures on petitions for the ballot initiative -- 27,000 more than required.

The petition drive -- which actually collected 130,050 signatures -- originated with 20-year-old Kristi Burton, who said in a news release that she developed a deep passion for the pro-life movement at 13 years of age.

"All humans should be protected by love and by law, and this amendment is a historic effort to ensure equal rights for every person," Burton noted in her statement.

"We at Colorado for Equal Rights are incredibly thankful for our many volunteers who worked so hard for each signature we delivered to the secretary of state's office and the churches who stood behind us and supported us," she added. "This victory is the voice of the people, and all credit goes to our Creator."

If approved by voters next fall, the amendment would guarantee every person, at every stage of life, the right to life, liberty, equality of justice and due process of law, Burton said. And while the initiative would not make abortion illegal, supporters and opponents alike believe it could lay the legal framework to legislate against abortion.

"For the first time in 40 years of 'legalized' child killing, pro-lifers have moved an entire state to consider the God-given right to life of the unborn," said Brian Rohrbough, president of American Right to Life, in a statement of his own on Thursday.

"Abortion is wrong because it's a baby; it's always wrong to intentionally kill a baby," said Rohrbough, "even when its father is a criminal, as with incest."

"The abortion clinic covers up the crime of incest and typically sends the victim back home to her rapist," the group's Web site states. "Even worse, they often send her home with her rapist, the criminal who brought her to the clinic."

"There are no 'hard cases,'" said Steve Curtis, American Right to Life's vice president and former chair of the Colorado Republican Party. "Abortion for incest emboldens a criminal to rape his young relative, helps him escape being caught, tempts him to repeat his crime and is not compassionate because it kills a baby and increases the woman's suffering."

"Abortion clinics nationwide refuse to comply with mandatory reporting laws for suspected child rape," noted Jo Scott, director of the group Pro-Life Colorado.

"We brought audio-taped evidence of that failure to the Colorado attorney general's office, and they chose to look the other way," Scott said. "Personhood for the unborn will reduce crimes against women and children."

"American Right to Life applauds the dozens of Colorado politicians and candidates who have publicly endorsed the personhood amendment," Rohrbough added, "and urges all Christians, pro-life leaders and organizations to support personhood as the only foundation on which to reverse the de-criminalization of killing unborn children."

Of course, the abortion industry, who makes their living from slaughtering the innocent, is having coniptions, and is throwing every cliche they have at the amendment:

However, opponents -- including a "broad-based coalition including nurses, doctors, religious leaders, community groups and health-care advocacy organizations" called Protect Families, Protect Choices -- have claimed that the amendment is "dangerous and deceptive."

"Access to affordable health care is already tough enough for Colorado families," the organization's Web site states. "But now a deceptively written ballot measure would put women's lives at risk and threaten access to health care.

"This amendment could make abortion illegal at all times, even in the earliest weeks of pregnancy," the site adds. "It could outlaw abortion even in the cases of rape, incest and when a woman's life is at risk."

The ballot initiative is "a dangerous attempt to put politicians and lawyers in the middle of our most personal and private health-care decisions," the coalition adds. "It would even open the door to letting prosecutors investigate miscarriages and go through our most private medical records.

"The amendment is so extreme that it could even ban several common forms of birth control and prohibit in-vitro fertilization and life-saving stem cell research," says the coalition, which includes the League of Women Voters and Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.

First of all, abortion is not "health care." [Yet another example of this] No one "gets healthy" from abortion; least of all the aborted. Second of all, tell me one instance in which embryonic stem cells saved one life. The dirty little secret is that there isn't any, since embryonic stem cells are too unstable to be useful. Yet the Mengelians in the abortion industry continue on with the lie.

The pro-death movement is based on one concept and one concept alone: Convenience of the living trumps the sanctity of life.

While the absence of abortion as a possibility may indeed make the lives of those who are in the midst of an unwanted pregnancy more "complicated" for a period of time, the "final solution" of the theft of a chance at life itself from a developing human being is by no means a just alternative.

And Coloradans will have a glowing opportunity to shout that from the Rocky Mountain-tops come this November.