...for a recovering alcoholic is that after a while, if your feet on planted on planet Earth, you'll have the misfortune to see others headed down the same path to misery that you trod.
And there won't be a damned thing you can do about it. Except pray for the poor bastards.
Washington D.C., Apr 26, 2011 / 05:58 pm (CNA).- A prominent law firm has withdrawn from an agreement to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act following pressure from homosexual activist groups. Former U.S. solicitor general Paul Clement has resigned from the firm rather than abandon the case, warning that the incident is a threat to the legal system.
“Defending unpopular decisions is what lawyers do,” Clement wrote to Robert D. Hays, chairman of the Atlanta-based King & Spalding LLP. He cited his “firmly held belief” that representation should not be abandoned “because the client’s legal position is unpopular in certain quarters.”
“The adversary system of justice depends on it, especially in cases where the passions run high. Efforts to delegitimize any representation for one side of a legal controversy are a profound threat to the rule of law,” he said.
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said that Clement demonstrated that he is “a man of courage” who adheres to “the highest standard of professional ethics.”
Brown charged that Clement’s former law firm showed “cowardice under fire.”
“The actions of King & Spalding would suggest that they believe an accused murderer is entitled to a vigorous defense, but the thousands-year old understanding of marriage is not, even though our marriage law was passed with overwhelming bi-partisan majorities and signed into law by President Clinton.”
The Defense of Marriage Act, enacted in 1996, recognizes marriage as a union between a man and a woman in federal law. It also protects individual states from being forced to recognize same-sex “marriages” contracted in states which recognize the unions.
The Obama administration had defended the law in court for two years, though critics said it did so in a half-hearted and ineffective manner. In February the administration announced that it deemed the law unconstitutional and would no longer defend it.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other House Republicans announced plans to defend the law and hired Clement and King & Spalding as counsel.
House Democrats, homosexual organizations and other advocacy groups attacked the firm for defending the law, the Wall Street Journal reports.
Criticism took the form of ads against the law firm in legal journals, letters to the firm’s clients, letters to law schools and an e-mail and Twitter message campaign.
The Human Rights Campaign and its affiliates planned news conferences and demonstrations in major cities attacking the law firm as defenders of discrimination against homosexuals, the California Catholic Daily reports.
Hays, the firm’s chairman, did not cite pressure from homosexual advocacy groups. His statement said that the approval process for taking on the case was inadequate. His comments could refer to a clause in the contract with House Republicans that prohibited the firm’s lawyers from any advocacy for or against bills that would change or repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
Legal experts told the New York Times that the clause is broader than most contract restrictions and could have severely limited the activities of the firm’s partners and employees.
Clement’s resignation letter said that if there were problems with the vetting process the firm should fix the process, not drop the representation. The attorney, who has not stated his personal opinion of the marriage Act, said there was “no honorable course” for him other than to complete his agreement to represent the House.
He has joined the law firm Bancroft PLLC, where he says he will continue to defend the federal law.
New York University School of Law professor Stephen Gillers told National Public Radio that Clement was “entirely right” and the law firm was “scared off by the prospect of becoming a pariah.” He also told the Times that the firm’s “timidity” will hurt “weak clients, poor clients and despised clients.”
Richard Socarides, president of the homosexual advocacy group Equality Matters, disagreed.
“While it is sometimes appropriate for lawyers to represent unpopular clients when an important principle is at issue, here the only principle he wishes to defend is discrimination and second-class citizenship for gay Americans,” he told the Times.
The National Organization for Marriage warned of the possible precedent set by the law firm’s withdrawal under activist pressure.
“This tantrum and its seeming success tell us that many on the left believe they have a veto on the principle that everybody deserves to be represented in court. It also suggests that there are few limits on what gay marriage supporters will do to marginalize those with whom they disagree.”
One of the Catholic blogs I regularly visit has a post concerning the satanic influence of Harry Potter books and films upon young children. I'll not mention the site by name or link to it, but the comment box is full of those who enthusiastically assent to that idea. Those of us who would disagree are characterized as dupes of Satan. Neat trick, I make an unsubstantiated claim and if you agree you're as wise as I am but if you don't you're hopelessly stupid. No proof required.
Do I believe in the real presence of Satan in this world? You can bet your sweet bippy on that one. I've seen too many human lives that were train wrecks in progress, known of too many victims of truly evil acts, have unfortunately personally known a few truly evil people. So yes, Satan is actively working in this world. If that makes me a nutcase, then eh, so what?
Do I think all too many young people are falling under the baneful influence of evil in our culture? Yep on that one too and for most of the same reasons already cited in the answer to the first question.
Do I believe that Harry Potter books & films will singlehandedly lead impressionable youngsters into the world of the occult? No way, no how.
If a kid is led into donning magician robes, drawing pentagrams and reciting spells you can bet it won't be solely from reading a book. This will have been preceded by a severe lack of proper teaching on the part of his parents/guardians. The resultant spiritual vacuum will be eventually filled by something, it won't be good either. That something could be alcoholism, drug addiction, involvement with the occult, strong athiestic beliefs, etc.
In reading the comments mentioned above I kept searching my memory for the example of a similar boogeyman that had been blamed for the lack of morality & religious beliefs in the young. At first I hit on the flap & furor that came about when role playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons became popular. That was close but no cigar.
Finally I realized what the hyperventilating hysteria most resembled IMO and that would be the subject of subliminal messages in rock music. THAT particular conspiracy theory goes at least all the way back to Elvis and is still flourishing today with as much basis in fact as the current Harry Potter bugbear.
Honestly, if someone's kid is ripping and running, doing what he/she shouldn't and thumbing their nose at the parents then it's probably due in large part to a problem with those parents. As the old Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young tune goes, "Teach your children well..."
They may still drive you insane with their antics, but chances are better that it will be minimized by that teaching you did and that they'll return to those teachings of their youth in time.
Just the opinion of a retired turdchaser with two adult children still needing my prayers and three smaller children he hopes to do better by.
Adrienne has some helpful advice for all pet owners. I'd suggest reading it without snacking or drinking. Here is the link: http://adriennescatholiccorner.blogspot.com/2011/04/some-helpful-pet-advice-everyone-should.html
Found this via Lucianne.com at www.bostonherald.com:
A state-funded sex education Web site that tells teens an abortion is “much easier than it sounds” has drawn fire from outraged pro-lifers who say mariatalks.com is glossing over ugly truths, steering teens toward the controversial procedure and counseling them how to keep mom and dad in the dark.
“The commonwealth is using taxpayer money to tell kids how to get a secret abortion, and that’s wrong,” said Linda Thayer, a former Boston schoolteacher who is vice president for educational affairs of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, which this week took aim at the site.
“This is a misuse of state funds, especially for parents who are taxpayers,” said Thayer, who also blasted the Web site for “deception by omission” for describing abortion simply as “when the contents of the womb (uterus) are removed.”
Mariatalks.com, featuring fictional hip teen “Maria,” who addresses teens in a breezy tone, has been produced since 2008 by the AIDS Action Committee with $100,000 annual grants from the state Department of Public Health. The money also covers a sex-crisis hotline and other outreach efforts.
AIDS Action Committee chief Rebecca Haag, in a statement defending the Web site, said, “We feel strongly that the issues that are addressed through the Maria Talks Web site are essential in safeguarding the general, sexual health of youth by informing them of their risk for unintended pregnancies, HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.”
Maria tells teen readers abortion is a “hot topic” but that the procedure is “more common than you might think” and “safe and effective, though some people may experience temporary discomfort.” The site’s discussion of risk is limited to advising that it is better to get an abortion sooner rather than later.
Planned Parenthood declined to comment on the language used by mariatalks.com. However, the abortion provider’s own Internet abortion advice includes a lengthy list of potential health risks — such as “infection,” “blood-clotting,” “injury to the cervix or other organs,” and “an incomplete abortion.”
In another segment, Maria says to Massachusetts teens, “The reality of getting an abortion is much easier than it sounds here.” In contrast, a more cautionary Maria counsels on another page that adoption “can be pretty tough for some people, especially emotionally.”
Of conflicted feelings over abortion, Maria counsels that one of her fictional friends found it a “difficult decision” but decided the procedure was the “best choice . . . for herself, her boyfriend, her family and her future.”
Of bypassing parental approval, Maria says, “It may be really hard for you to imagine talking to either your parents or a judge about getting an abortion, but there are people who can help you through it.”
By comparison, Planned Parenthood explicitly states, “Teens are encouraged to involve parents in their decision.”
Under state law, children under 18 seeking an abortion must have permission from a parent or a guardian. Maria notes that state law allows minors to skirt that approval through a confidential judicial hearing, saying, “I know it sounds crazy . . . this really can be done and young women do this all the time here in Massachusetts.”
The site then directs teens to Planned Parenthood, saying that agency will either help them talk to parents or provide a lawyer to guide them through the judicial process.
NARAL Pro-Choice America Executive Director Andrea Miller called Maria Talks “terrific.”
“It’s really a complete and medically accurate set of information,” Miller said. “I’m impressed that the state has provided this information in a youth-friendly, nonjudgmental manner.”
State health officials had no immediate comment on the controversy over the site yesterday.
Meanwhile, Charles Skidmore, principal of Arlington High School, where a Maria Talks poster hangs in the nurse’s office, said, “I’m assuming because it’s from the Department of Public Health, it’s balanced information. There’s so much information available now, at least this has someone standing behind it that is a state-sponsored organization.”
(Story ends here. My comments follow.)
That chattering sound you heard was my jaw bouncing off the floor.
Let me get this straight. The Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health, a taxpayer funded agency, is actively endorsing abortion while cautioning against the risks of adoption. Since it isn't uncommon for Federal funds to supplement state agency funding, I'm not too certain your tax dollars and mine aren't going to help pay for this.
This is so completely FUBAR on so many levels it's staggering.
Note that even Planned Parenthood is officially more reserved on the risks than these nannystaters. How often does THAT happen?
So an underage child can go slap bellies with a guy, get knocked up, circumvent her parents for an abortion (and who would pay for this? Another example of our tax dollars at work?) and it's really no big deal? All of this sanctioned by a state agency?
Somewhere Moloch is laughing.
While going through the Catholic portion of the blogosphere I've come across a fair diversity of opinion regarding the 2011 budget compromise. Some folks are of the, "now let's roll up our sleeves and get to work" mindset, too many others are sounding like C3PO of Star Wars (We're doomed, DOOMED I tell you!).
Hey, it's for the remainder of fiscal year 2011. That boils down to six months, half a year. Not much time for anything significant.
Nope, Planned Parenthood has not yet been defunded and if past history is any indicator we can bet that the up-or-down vote in the Senate on Thursday will be a victory for Moloch. Got it.
Yep, that ban of federal funds for abortions in DC is only a return to what we had until recently. Not really something to count as a gain, considering how hard it was to get that.
Got it.
So what the hell were the doom & gloom crowd expecting anyway? Riproaring success? A thorough public spanking of Moloch's Minions?
We fight until we're exhausted, take a break and then come back for more. Thats how it goes. This will never end. We'll be battling the Culture of Death right up to our last breaths. It's always been that way, always will be too. Check the Bible if you don't believe me. Check Church history for whats happened in the past.
Christ told us this when He warned that no servant was greater than his master, so that if He were persecuted we could expect more of the same. That means we'll be in the trenches for life.
If it won't be abortion, it'll be embryonic stem cell research. If it isn't that it'll be gay marriage or euthanasia. The beat goes on.
We live in a secular world, that means one given over to the Prince of Darkness (no, not Tim Curry in "Legend" either). All we can do is try to live in it without being of it. End of story.
Now it's time to get to bed. I've got to go stand outside a Planned Parenthood satellite office tomorrow with my homemade sign that reads, "End Abortion Now". Short and to the point. What always amazes me is the high number of "thumbs up" signs I get.
Fight stokes Planned Parenthood
By: Sarah Kliff
April 12, 2011 04:38 AM EDT
Online gifts to Planned Parenthood have surged by 500 percent since Republicans passed a budget amendment stripping the group of its federal funding.
NARAL Pro-Choice America’s email activist list grew by 1,000 subscribers per day at the height of the budget debate.
With the budget battle putting women’s health issues front and center, reproductive health groups tell POLITICO they’ve seen an unprecedented surge in activism at a time when many supporters had grown complacent, less fazed by legislative threats now that a president who supports abortion rights is at the helm.
Last Friday, with the budget deadline looming, congressional Democrats tripped over each other to squeeze in back-to-back news conferences and floor speeches extolling the place of women’s health in the federal budget and chastising Republican-proposed cuts.
“Republicans are asking me to sacrifice my wife’s health, my daughter’s health and my nine granddaughters’ health. I won’t do it,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday in a floor statement. “As a legislator, I’m frustrated. As an American, I’m appalled. As a husband, father and grandfather, I’m personally offended.”
“I am really stunned,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said earlier, “that there are those in the Republican Party in the House who are willing to shut down the government, take people’s paychecks away from them because they want to deny women access to health care in this country.”
It was a marked departure from just over a year ago, when the final days of the health reform debate left reproductive health groups sidelined. Obama clinched the support of anti-abortion Democrats such as Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak — votes needed to pass the law — by accepting abortion restrictions roundly opposed by reproductive health groups.
Congressional allies by and large acquiesced to the new rules as a sacrifice necessary to pass a landmark health reform law. Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), a strong abortion rights supporter, ultimately voted for the health law while expressing reservations about the abortion restrictions, saying at the time she was “disappointed that women’s access to full reproductive health care is again paying the price” to pass legislation.
“There was so much more going on, and it was much more confusing,” NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan said of the messaging challenge the group faced in protecting abortion rights during the health reform debate. “This was such a clear attack on contraception, women’s health and abortion care. It’s been good to see the party committees engaging in choice-related issues in ways they have not in the past.”
To be sure, abortion rights advocates did not score a complete win as Obama reinstated a provision that prevents the District of Columbia from spending local tax dollars on abortion services. The president had lifted the ban shortly after taking office.
But in interviews with POLITICO, leaders of top reproductive health groups said this battle was a near 180-degree turn from their lobbying experience during health reform, with a surge in activism and financial support.
They chalk up the spike to two key factors: a tangible issue around which to organize and a more aggressive, coordinated grass-roots strategy. Ironically, it was Rep. Mike Pence’s pointed attack on Planned Parenthood that seemed to have awakened the group’s supporters.
“If the federal budget proposal had simply said, ‘We’re going to eliminate family planning funding,’ I don’t think people would have been as concerned,” said Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards. “But they literally went after Planned Parenthood. For the first time, I think, the next generation of pro-choice women and men saw that the attack was real. It would affect their lives. It wasn’t hypothetical like last year’s debate; it really connected the personal with the political.”
Planned Parenthood’s Facebook fans surged 992 percent after the House approved the budget amendment to defund the group in mid-February. More than 810,000 supporters signed its petition denouncing the amendment — more than half of them new users who had never been active with Planned Parenthood prior to the budget debate. The social media activity also drove Planned Parenthood’s surge in online donations.
When Planned Parenthood hit Capitol Hill in the final days of the budget debate, it handed out copies of “Stories From Home,” a newly compiled book of supporters’ stories selected from more than 7,000 personal narratives submitted online. Stories came from all 50 states.
“I have pages and pages of women saying Planned Parenthood found early-stage cervical cancer, and they got me to a doctor,” Richards said. “This is not an imaginary issue. It’s real. It’s 7,000 stories, and that is very poignant.”
The challenge now will be to keep a wave of new supporters engaged as the budget threat recedes into the background. Abortion rights groups have often had difficulty engaging younger voters, who have grown up after the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade and have never known a country in which abortion is illegal.
Abortion rights advocates will soon have another opportunity to rally the troops: Pence’s stand-alone legislation, which would also strip Planned Parenthood of its funding from the Title X program, has been promised a hearing next month.
The Energy and Commerce Committee’s Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee previously indicated it would call Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for a hearing on the issue in May. The panel has yet to announce a date and has not communicated scheduling plans to Pence’s office.
“We’re working with leadership and the committee to move the bill,” Pence spokesman Matt Lloyd wrote in an email. “Right now, nothing is scheduled.”
Planned Parenthood’s Richards believes her organization has emerged from the budget battle stronger, with a slew of publicity for the preventive services it provides. Many news accounts have reported that abortion makes up 3 percent of the group’s services.
“I don’t know how many graphs and pie charts have been shown on national television at this point,” Richards said. “It is so important that there is an absolutely new understanding of what we do in terms of preventive services.”
(Story ends here. My comments follow.)
So anyone thinking the demise of Planned Parenthood is even visible on the horizon needs to read the above article. The beast has a lot of life in it yet.
It's very telling that at a time when the base for Planned Parenthood is reinvigorated so many prolife supporters have thrown their hands in the air over the failure of Congress to strike Planned Parenthood support from the 2011 budget. I'll have more to say on that topic a bit later.
But the point of this post is that we need to get our collective ass in gear and strap ourselves in for the long haul.
This link takes you to an excellent explanation of the different types of stem cells, their behaviors and the reason we hear so much about the embryonic cells: http://gerardnadal.com/2011/04/11/updating-the-stem-cell-wars-part-i/
It is definetly worth a read.
Senate to Vote Thursday on De-Funding Planned Parenthood by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com 4/11/11 7:00 PM The next step in the battle to de-fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business came when pro-life House Speaker John Boehner forced pro-abortion Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid to do something he swore he wouldn’t do: allow a vote. The Senate will vote on Thursday.
House Republicans have already approved the Pence Amendment to yank tens of millions of dollars from the abortion business that it receives under Title X. Now, it’s the Senate’s turn and pro-life groups like Americans United for Life are urging senators to vote for de-funding.
“This is the vote that Washington, DC insiders said we’d never get, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid swore he would never allow,” AUL said.
Brian Burch, President of CatholicVote, told LifeNews.com his group would hold any senators political accountable for voting against the amendment.
“Any Senator who votes to continue taxpayer support for scandal-ridden Planned Parenthood will be a prime target of our election efforts in 2012. These votes will have consequences. If Senators want our support, they must earn it. And if they fail us, we will do everything possible to defeat them,” he said.
Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life of America, added: “Just two months ago, experts were telling me that getting a vote in the Senate would be impossible, and I shouldn’t even hope for it, and said that Planned Parenthood funding cause the budget impasse between Democrats and Republicans was a victory.
“Think about this,” she said. “Our efforts were so effective that the disagreements over Planned Parenthood funding between the pro-life House and pro-abortion Senate leadership almost caused a government shutdown.”
The last time senators voted on Planned Parenthood funding, they rejected the Vitter amendment on a 52-41 vote in October 2007. That came on an amendment pro-life Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, offered to the fiscal year 2008 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. The Vitter amendment focused on what pro-life advocates call fungible funds — money meant for non-abortion purposes that allows abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood to more easily pay for abortions.
During the debate on his amendment, Vitter said it is a “very reasonable mainstream policy to say” that the government is not going to “support groups that perform abortions.”
Vitter added that federal funds subsidize abortion by supporting organizations that provide them, even if the groups do not use federal funding to perform abortions. “The way it works now, we send federal dollars to abortion providers … and it supports their overhead and it supports their organizations,” he said.
Pro-abortion Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, led the fight against the Vitter amendment and claimed it would have done “nothing to reduce abortions.”
Only Republicans supported the amendment and even pro-life Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania voted against it. They will face significantly more pressure this time around to support the amendment. In that 2007 vote, Republican Sens. Kit Bond, Sue Collins, Dick Lugar, Lisa Murkowski, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, and Ted Stevens joined Democrats in voting against the Vitter amendment.
Contact your two U.S. senators and ask them to vote to de-fund Planned Parenthood. They can be contacted via this link: http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Obama Refused Boehner Demand to Cut Planned Parenthood Funding
by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 4/11/11 3:41 PM
New reports issued today on the exchanges between pro-abortion President Barack Obama and pro-life Speaker John Boehner show Obama refused to agree to Boehner’s demand to cut Planned Parenthood funding.
For over an hour on Friday, Boehner kept lobbying Obama to agree to some kind of funding cut. However, according to Bloomberg News, after Obama agreed to reinstate a ban on taxpayer funding of abortions in the District of Columbia, he refused to cut any taxpayer disbursements to the abortion business.
“Nope, zero,” he told Boehner when the pro-life Speaker asked him how much he would cut from Planned Parenthood.
Bloomberg also indicates pro-abortion Vice President Joe Biden told Boehner the Obama administration was prepared to take the battle to voters and allow a shutdown of the federal government over Planned Parenthood funding.
Boehner asked Obama again, to which Obama responded, “Nope. Zero. John, this is it.” After that, the New York Times says one participant told it there was a long awkward silence following the exchange where everyone had a facial expression as if yo say, “What do we do now,”
The answer was for Bohener to get pro-abortion Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid to go back on a promise he made to not allow a vote on de-funding Planned Parenthood. With no vote originally planned on the Pence Amendment, securing one to go along with the DC abortion funding ban was a victory.
Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican who is pro-life, told the news service Boehner told Republican lawmakers he got the best deal he could given that Republicans only control half of Congress and don’t have the White House.
“We control one half of one third of the government,” Issa said. “We don’t mandate anything.”
Pro-life advocates responded to the news reports on the inside negotiations between Obama and Boehner and praised the deal pro-life advocates won.
Americans United for Life president Charmaine Yoest thanked Boehner “for his leadership in gaining Senate votes on de-funding the scandal-ridden Planned Parenthood and repealing the President’s pro-abortion health care law.”
“Speaker Boehner achieved what most said was impossible – cutting taxpayer funding of abortion in the District of Columbia and guaranteeing straight up-or-down votes in the Senate on both defunding Planned Parenthood and President Obama’s pro-abortion health care law,” she told LifeNews. “Now it is time for the U.S. Senate to go on record on these critical issues and to get the American taxpayer out of the business of funding abortion. Their vote will be closely watched and AULA intends to score both as key votes.”
“Long-term de-funding of abortion is a strategic goal that has advanced this session, thanks to hard work and key support. More can be done, but we see pro-life momentum and look to the Senate to respect the wishes of the American people regarding federal funding of abortion,” she added.
Jill Stanek also praised Boehner’s maneuvering, saying he was able to get Democrats on record and set up election battles to defeat pro-abortion senators.
“While pro-lifers lament Planned Parenthood wasn’t defunded in the final 2011 budget, Harry Reid and Barack Obama threw seven Senate Democrats under the bus in the process,” Stanek says. “Reid and Obama agreed to let the Senate have an up or down vote on defunding Planned Parenthood.”
“We already know such a vote will fail, since 41 Democrats signed a letter on April 4 saying they’d oppose such a measure, making it bullet-proof,” she explained. “But House Majority Leader John Boehner’s strategy is to force so-called Democrat moderates to go on the record, potentially getting ammo for the 2012 elections.”
Stanek also hailed the educational value of such a vote, “Obama and Reid also threw Planned Parenthood under the bus by agreeing to Boehner’s demand. A vote in the Senate to defund Planned Parenthood keeps it in the news, further tarnishing its brand.”
Thomas Peters of CatholicVote says, “I believe this reported exchange can provide us some lessons. The President evidently has promised that he will never cut taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood. At the same time, he has not demonstrated one scintilla of interest in the claims made by Live Action (and others) that PP is a corrupt organization which harms women (and kills their children). Pause for a moment and consider what sort of things the President and his administration would be doing and saying if the claims made about Planned Parenthood were being made about pro-life health clinics. Suddenly he and his friends would be very interested.”
“Here’s why Planned Parenthood is such a sacred cow for Obama and the Democrats: it absolutely represents their own vision for “health care” for women. There is not a shred of difference between what they want American women to be told about these issues and what Planned Parenthood tells them. PP is an ideological vehicle for the left’s agenda when it comes to sexuality and reproductive “choice,” Peters continued. “What is outrageous about all of this is that Planned Parenthood remains a “non-profit” organization and is funded in large part by Americans’ taxes. I believe this represents a clear conflict of interest. After all, PP donates overwhelmingly to Democrat candidates and causes, who in turn channel more of our tax money to Planned Parenthood. The glaring point in this whole picture is who is paying for this: us.”
“The President’s total inability to make even the smallest cut to Planned Parenthood’s federal taxpayer funding should trouble those who are also concerned about our government’s record-high spending, debt and deficits. If Obama can not even defund even a corrupt, harmful organization like Planned Parenthood how will he ever cut bloated government entitlements – entitlements which you and I are being forced to fund?” Peters asks.
“Obama’s response to Speaker Boehner that he is unwilling to cut (or even lower) the amount of taxpayer money given to Planned Parenthood each year isn’t a message to Boehner – it’s a message to you and me,” he concludes. “The message from the President is: “Your money will pay for what I tell you it will pay for. And I say your money will pay for Planned Parenthood.” How do we feel about that?”
As once again we get sucked into a war we have no business in and our troops are used as pieces in some sort of global political game by the Jackass-in-Chief: Gen.: U.S. troops not ideal, but may be considered in Libya
Anything else I say will be completely unprintable.
Maybe not. But I'd think at the very least she'd be a terrific Secretary of State.
Okay, burning a Koran on YouTube might be considered overly dramatic, childish, and lacking compassion for any nonviolent followers of the Pedophile Prophet.
There, I think that covers all the reasonable objections.
Noted.
I admire her restraint.
Found this at nationalreview.com:
Pro-Life Med Students Face Discrimination
By John Bruchalski, M.D. & Dominique J. Monlezun Jr.
April 7, 2011 11:35 A.M. We recently completed a two-week national bioethics tour through 23 medical schools and universities with Medical Students for Life of America, during which we hoped to let some of America’s top medical students know that they are not alone in facing discrimination based on their pro-life beliefs. Nearly 1,000 medical students from both sides of this debate joined us to engage this question, from Harvard Medical School to Mayo, from the University of Pittsburgh to the University of Virginia. Some of the stories we heard may startle you.
Take “Christine,” who said that none of her professors talk about relationships in medicine, only the ideology of just performing the procedure. We also learned of “Ryan,” who was punished by his own mentor. He was the only one among his peers to suggest adoption for a woman in a troubled pregnancy; everyone else recommended abortion as the first and only option. A memo by his professor later surfaced in which he declared that “Ryan” would be a future abortion-clinic bomber. This memo was never sent to Ryan but went straight into his student file, the hub of school performance evaluation that becomes critical when students apply to residency programs. He was blacklisted for believing women deserve options.
Then there’s “Mary,” who said she felt intellectually assaulted during her OB/GYN rotation in her school’s training hospital. She recalls being inundated with professor instructions to promote abortions continually for pregnant patients, never mind her personal beliefs about it. The same was recommended for sterilization and abortifacients, drugs intended to prevent pregnancy that kill a new human embryo before a woman knows she’s pregnant.
This nationwide discrimination makes countless students hide their beliefs — and their identities — for fear of risking their grades and careers. This means fewer pro-life doctors are available to the increasing number of patients who consider themselves pro-life and seek like-minded doctors. As the wife of one GWU medical student asked after our event there, “What about my conscience rights as a patient?”
Found this over at California Catholic Daily.
Found this via Lucianne.com at flagerlive.com;
Volusia Schools Joining Flagler in Protecting LGBT Sexual Identity Against Bullying
The Volusia County School Board Tuesday evening unanimously approved adding “gender identity or expression” to the district’s policy prohibiting student bullying and harassment.
The policy was prompted by the case of an 8-year-old Deltona child, biologically a girl, who is being raised as a boy according to what the parents and the boy believe is the child’s true sexual identity. The boy’s parents granted his wish in 2009, including a boy’s name. The child’s mother has been pressing the school board for a policy change for almost two years. The school board resisted for months, saying its policy was sufficient to protect all students. Meanwhile, the boy was being harassed about his identity by other students.
The policy move in Volusia follows on the heels of a related issue in Flagler County, where a gay 9th grade student, formerly at Flagler Palm Coast High School, had been bullied by students and insulted by a shop teacher. The ACLU intervened. The teacher was reprimanded and required to make a public apology, though the student never returned to school. He’s taking courses through Florida Virtual School. The Flagler County School board also agreed to do what the Volusia board did Tuesday, though Flagler has yet to enact that pledge.
“We are very happy to see this important policy adopted,” said George Griffin, President of the Volusia-Flagler Chapter of ACLU of Florida. “We’ve been working with the board and the community for more than a year to take this step forward to make students and schools safer.”
Griffin and the Volusia-Flagler Chapter began working to get explicit protections based on “gender identity or expression” added to the policy after the 34-year-old mother of the student brought concerns about the treatment of her child in a Volusia school to the ACLU’s attention.
During the Tuesday board meeting, Griffin read a statement from the mother, who would not appear in person. “I wish I could be the one reading this to you today, but because of the controversy surrounding this subject we must remain anonymous to protect our family,” her statement read.
“We have spoken to individuals and organizations across the state and across the country, and we’ve learned of the relentless torment these kids endure simply because they want to be themselves,” Griffin said for the mother. “By adding gender identity and expression to the policy, you are not just protecting my child, but hundreds of others will have one more layer of protection, knowing that they matter to you.”
“We were happy to play a role in developing this policy but it would not have been possible without the leadership of elected officials such as Board Member Diane Smith who really took this issue to heart,” Griffin said.
After a year of meetings and discussions between local and state ACLU representatives, the parent, and district officials including Smith, the inclusive policy was adopted at a regular Board meeting Tuesday night.
“This was the right thing to do,” Smith said. “Our school board is student focused and makes decisions with their best interests in mind. This amendment strengthens our current policy so that we can ensure all students are protected from bullying and harassment.”
The success in protecting students in Volusia is part of the ACLU of Florida’s longstanding commitment and work through litigation and advocacy to secure and protect the rights of LGBT students — that is, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender — to learn in a safe environment that is free of harassment, bullying and discrimination.
“The most common forms of bullying and harassment in Florida schools, and across the country, are based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, and physical appearance,” said Shelbi Day, ACLU of Florida LGBT Project Attorney. “Although the state anti-bullying law clearly prohibits bullying and harassment of any students, it is imperative that individual school district policies make clear that bullying and harassment of LGBT students is prohibited and will not be tolerated. This is a critical step in making Florida schools truly safe for all students.”
(End of story. My comments follow.)
So at eight years of age a kid decides she is actually a he? I wonder what happens when some parents with common sense pat their little darling on the head and say, "No way, no how. This is how God made you. Deal with it."
Will the child be able to get CPS involved? Will the parents find themselves brought up on charges of child abuse? These aren't hypothetical questions, they're very appropriate given how our present culture routinely trashes traditional Judeo-Christian values.
My kneejerk reflex is to say this is a great argument for home schooling, but the problem BEGAN in the home with "Mom and Dad" readily acquiesing to the desires of their child. Ultimately THAT will be where the true child abues lies!
In the meantime, those of us holding to any kind of morality may want to keep an ear to the ground for the inevitable outcome of cases such as this.
Over at catholicculture.org there's a good post by Dr. Jeff Mirus regarding the knee-jerk reflex so many folks have regarding government. My favorite line was: If the very inefficiency of government involvement is not sufficient to warn citizens away from invoking government unnecessarily, the concomitant assault on the personal dignity of citizens ought to scare them off
Yeah, what he said.
Here's the link to the article: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=793
Found this via Lucianne.com at www.chicagotribune.com
Census worker won't take no for answer
The first few requests were tolerable. A Census Bureau worker would knock on John and Beverly Scott's door and ask them to fill out an American Community Survey. The McKinley Park couple would politely decline.
But as the days passed, the visits became more frequent and the requests more urgent.
Some evenings, the doorbell would ring at dinnertime, then again at 10 p.m.
"I'm generally a nice guy. I didn't want to shut the door in her face," John Scott said. "I said, 'I'm not going to answer your questions.' She kept saying, 'You've got to, you've got to.' I shut the door, and she kept ringing the doorbell and tapping on the window."
It isn't that the Scotts are anti-government or are philosophically opposed to the census. The couple filled out their decennial form last year, answering every question.
But they're not too keen on the American Community Survey, a more in-depth, ongoing questionnaire the Census Bureau conducts to compile information on area demographics, consumer patterns and economic issues.
In particular, the Scotts did not want to answer questions they found too personal, such as inquiries about their income, when they left for work and their health.
"The new questionnaire has gone way over the line," Scott said. "We have told the representative that we are not going to answer private questions, but they continue to come to our door at all hours of the day and night."
Scott said the requests had become so repetitive and annoying, the couple began pulling the old "out-of-candy-on-Halloween trick."
"I work afternoons, and I'm not home," Scott said. "My wife has to sit with the lights off because she doesn't want to be bothered."
Often, even that doesn't work.
"They knock and knock and knock and ring and ring and ring," Beverly Scott said. "Knocking longer is not going to make me answer the door, and it's not going to help if we're not here."
The final straw, John Scott said, was when a Census Bureau employee told him he would be fined $2,000 if he did not fill out the 48-question survey.
Upset, he e-mailed What's Your Problem?
"If they come up with a fine, let's go to court. I don't care," he said. "I just want them to stop coming. That's my main focus. Leave me alone."
The Problem Solver called Jack Walsh, survey supervisor with the American Community Survey's Chicago regional office. Walsh said the survey is required by law and helps determine such things as the Consumer Price Index and how federal funding is allocated.
Although residents can be fined for not participating in the survey, he said that is not the government's goal.
"Those fines exist, but we instruct the field staff that their job is to try to obtain the information through pleasant means, by stressing the importance of the survey," Walsh said. "They're not law enforcement officers."
Walsh said the Scotts will not be fined if they choose not to participate in the survey.
"Realistically, we're not interested in prosecution," he said. "We're interested in obtaining information."
Walsh said households are selected randomly, and the information provided is kept confidential. Information is gathered in three-month cycles, meaning the Scotts would have received their survey in the mail in January, gotten telephone follow-ups in February, then been visited at home by regional field staff in March.
The cycle was scheduled to end within days, but Walsh said Tuesday that he would instruct the field staff to quit visiting the Scotts' home immediately.
"We won't bug him anymore in the next several days," Walsh said.
Beverly Scott said the requests ended immediately.
"They stopped calling and they stopped putting notes on the door and knocking," she said. "It was too much."
