“Life: Imagine the Potential”

The third release in CatholicVote.org’s national new media campaign “Life: Imagine the Potential” series.

Every Life

I loved this because every life deserves a lifetime.  Every life.

–Beetle Blogger

Abortion Doctor Admits “Yes, I am killing”

Dr. Curtis Boyd admits he is killing children in his Texas office.  Dr. Boyd is a late term abortionist.  He is one of the only clinics who is willing to perform late term abortions in his state.  Clients, he says, come even across state lines to receive his services.  Dr. Boyd will perform abortions on girls as young as ten years old with pregnancies up to 24 weeks of development.

In a civilized society, it is hard to understand how people like this can make rational sense out of what they choose to do, but the hardest thing for me to understand is why we as a society allow it.  He knows it is a life he is taking, and yet it doesn’t matter.  For him, only one person matters, the will of the mother.

We hear so much about the mother’s right to choose, but don’t we as a society have an obligation to provide for the protection of the innocent unborn?

Life is a gift.  It is precious.

—Beetle Blogger

I Will Carry You

This is beautiful. This baby is a child, a gift from God.

Court: Doctors Must Inform Patients That “Abortion Ends Life”

lifephoto by Chaps1

A Small Victory for Life!

If courts and doctors acknowledge the life and potential of preborn babies, then the acknowledgment of preborn human rights are not far behind.  The uncomfortable reality is that it’s more than just one woman’s choice involved here.  There are two individuals involved in abortion, not just one.

Isn’t it ironic that a group calling itself “Planned Parenthood” would so completely deny the rights as well as the responsibilities of parenthood over a child?

Here’s hoping this sentiment continues to spread.  This development in child’s rights is long overdue.

—Beetle Blogger

From CRI: South Dakota Doctors Must Inform Patients “Abortion Ends Life”
In a key ruling, last week a federal judge upheld a South Dakota law requiring women be told that abortion ends a human life. The ruling came as a result of a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota to challenge South Dakota’s informed consent law, passed in 2005.U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier decided that in conformance with the law, doctors must disclose “that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.” However, Schreier did agree with Planned Parenthood that doctors should not be required to inform women they may suffer from suicidal thoughts or that they have an “existing relationship” with their preborn child.”This is the unraveling of Roe (v. Wade). This is a huge, fatal blow to them,” said Leslee Unruh, founder of the Alpha Center pregnancy counseling center in Sioux Falls.

Planned Parenthood is considering appealing the decision in hopes of preventing doctors from discussing the termination of human life through abortion.

“This is a monumental victory for the pro-life movement and for freedom of medical information,” explained Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute. “Abortion does end a human life and that undeniable fact will now be shared in South Dakota. Hopefully similar policies will spread throughout the country.”

Victory for Families—Planned Parenthood Defeated in Modesto

“This victory proves that when parents are informed and engaged, they can defeat even the big, well-funded organizations like Planned Parenthood.”

CRI

Victory for Modesto Parents

Modesto parents achieved a significant victory for parental rights last night. The Modesto School Board agreed to leave in place a parent-friendly confidential medical services policy. The policy requires students to obtain their parents’ signature before they are allowed to leave campus.

Organizations like Planned Parenthood, who profit from confidential medical services such as abortion or drug counseling, have been intimidating school boards with parent-friendly policies by telling them the law mandates they permit students to leave campus. However, the law clearly states that schools “may” allow students to leave, but are not required to. Parents are still in charge of whether their children leave school campus for medical treatment.

Initially, the Modesto School Board appeared to be kowtowing to the powerful special interests groups. But as soon as parents became aware of the situation, the board realized parents wouldn’t countenance such a violation of their trust in the school district.

CRI’s executive director Karen England was in attendance at the school board meeting last night. “This is a major victory for parents,” commented England. “This victory proves that when parents are informed and engaged, they can defeat even the big, well-funded organizations like Planned Parenthood.”

“Due to the remarkable coordination and cooperation amongst parents, churches, local talk radio, CRI and Pacific Justice Institute, Modesto residents have protected their children from exploitation,” observed England. “The community really pulled together and achieved an important victory for parental rights.”

CRI encourages California parents to make sure their local school district has a parent-friendly confidential medical services policy. If not, call CRI and we will help you ensure your parental rights are protected.

Carbon Footprint or a Child?

footprints-child

Exchanging One Footprint for Another

Does this sound familiar?  It could have been lifted straight out of the 60’s- 70’s.  Remember the days of the population explosion panic?  (Thomas Malthus, 1766-1834–his theories never panned out)  Carbon footprint theories are a different issue, but with the same take on population explosion.  Both views are used to justify abortion.  Can’t anyone come up with something original???

If someone offered me a bag of 9,441 metric tons of carbon or a child. I would pick the child every time…..every time.

—Beetle Blogger

From LiveScience.com

For people who are looking for ways to reduce their “carbon footprint,” here’s one radical idea that could have a big long-term impact, some scientists say: Have fewer kids.

A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environment-friendly practices people might employ during their entire lives – things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.

“In discussions about climate change, we tend to focus on the carbon emissions of an individual over his or her lifetime,” said study team member Paul Murtaugh. “Those are important issues and it’s essential that they should be considered. But an added challenge facing us is continuing population growth and increasing global consumption of resources.”

Reproductive choices haven’t gained as much attention in the consideration of human impact to the Earth, Murtaugh said. When an individual produces a child – and that child potentially produces more descendants in the future – the effect on the environment can be many times the impact produced by a person during their lifetime.

A child’s impact

Under current conditions in the United States, for instance, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent – about 5.7 times the lifetime emissions for which, on average, a person is responsible.

The impact doesn’t only come through increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases – larger populations also generate more waste and tax water supplies.

The impact of having children differs between countries. While some developing nations have much higher populations and rates of population growth than the United States, their overall impact on the global carbon equation is often reduced by shorter life spans and less consumption. The long-term impact of a child born to a family in China is less than one-fifth the impact of a child born in the United States, the study found.

However, as the developing world increases both its population and consumption levels, this equation may even out.

“China and India right now are steadily increasing their carbon emissions and industrial development, and other developing nations may also continue to increase as they seek higher standards of living,” Murtaugh said.

Not advocating law

The researchers note that they are not advocating government controls or intervention on population issues, but say they simply want to make people aware of the environmental consequences of their reproductive choices.

“Many people are unaware of the power of exponential population growth,” Murtaugh said. “Future growth amplifies the consequences of people’s reproductive choices today, the same way that compound interest amplifies a bank balance.”

Forced Abortion Funding=Healthcare? What else is in the new healthcare bill?

Who do you want making your healthcare decisions?  You and your doctor or the government?  This new healthcare bill is full of government nannygrabbing our personal freedoms.  People ought to be free to self govern in issues as personal and private as the health of ourselves and our most precious loved ones.

Of all the issues facing families right now, this one is near the top of the heap.  Cradle to the grave oversight?  Do we need it? And what about the moral implications of forcing a population deeply morally divided on abortion to fund abortions on demand?

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said on National Public Radio that this healthcare legislation would be “a platform to extend access to abortion to all women in the United States.”

OneNewsNow reports Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, on the new language recently approved in the bill:

“…[T]he fact is the language that the House committee adopted over our objections, and which [Richards’] side supports, would explicitly authorize the new government plan — which would be available to every American — to cover abortion on demand,” the pro-life leader explains. “It would also allow federal subsidies to flow to private health plans that could cover abortion on demand.”

There are many chilling aspects of this bill, but the militant abortion angle, forcing people to do what they are morally repulsed by, is not the spirit of freedom.  If for that reason alone, this bill should go down in flames.

—Beetleblogger

Have You Read It?

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure
Pg 30 Sec 123—THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get
Pg 29 lines 4-16—YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED
Pg 42 —The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits for you. You have no choice!
PG 50 Section 152 —HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise
Pg 58 —Govt will have real-time access to individual’s finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued
Pg 59 lines 21-24 —Govt will have direct access to your banks accts for electronic funds transfer
PG 65 Sec 164 —Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).
Pg 72 Lines 8-14 —Govt is creating an HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Govt control
PG 84 Sec 203 —Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the Exchange
PG 85 Line 7—Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration your Healthcare!
PG 91 Lines 4-7—-Govt mandates linguistic approp services. Example – Translation for illegal aliens
Pg 95 Lines 8-18—The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan
PG 85 Line 7—Specs of Benefit Levels 4 Plans. #AARP members – Your Healthcare WILL be rationed
PG 102 Lines 12-18—Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice
PG 124 lines 24-25—No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Govt Monopoly
PG 127 Lines 1-16—Doctors/ #AMA – The Govt will tell YOU what you can make.
Pg 145 Line 15-17—An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public opt plan. NO CHOICE
Pg 146 Lines 22-25—Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.
Pg 149 Lines 16-24—ANY Employer with payroll 400k & above who does not ovide public opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll
PG 150 Lines 9-13—Business with payroll between 251k & 400k who doesn’t provide public opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll
Pg 167 Lines 18-23—ANY individual who doesn’t have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income
Pg 170 Lines 1-3—Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay)
Pg 195—Officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL American’s financial/personal records
PG 203 Line 14-15—“The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax” Yes, it says that
Pg 239 Line 14-24—Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected
Pg 241 Line 6-8—Doctors, doesn’t matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same
PG 253 Line 10-18—Govt sets value of Doctor’s time, prof judg, etc. Literally value of humans.
PG 265 Sec 1131—Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries
PG 268 Sec 1141—Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs
PG 272 SEC. 1145.—TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS – Cancer patients – welcome to rationing!
PG 280 Sec 1151—The Govt will penalize hospitals for what Govt deems preventable readmissions.
PG 298 Lines 9-11—Doctors, treat a patient during initial admission that results in a readmission – Govt will penalize you.
PG317 L 13-20—PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Doctors what/how much they can own.
PG 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3—PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand
PG 321 2-13—Hospitals have option to apply for exception BUT community input required.
PG 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339—Govt mandates establishment of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing
PG 341 Lines 3-9—Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing peeps into Govt plan
PG 354 Sec 1177—Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people!
Pg 379 Sec 1191—Govt creates more bureaucracy – Telehealth Advisory Committee. Can you say HC by phone?
PG 425 Lines 4-12—Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consultant. Think Senior Citizens end of life
Pg 425 Lines 17-19—Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!
PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3—Govt provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death
PG 427 Lines 15-24—Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends
Pg 429 Lines 1-9—An “adanced care planning consultant” will be used frequently as patient’s health deteriorates
PG 429 Lines 10-12—“advanced care consultation” may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV
Pg 429 Lines 13-25 —-The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.
PG 430 Lines 11-15—The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life
PG 489 Sec 1308—The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt into your marriage
Pg 494-498—Govt will cover Mental Health Services includingdefining, creating, rationing those services

Read the bill  yourself here.

Parents are the Enemy

locked out

Parents are the Enemy

What kind of cannibalistic society assumes the worst of it’s parents?  Or the flipside of the same coin, what society is so selfishly absorbed in personal “rights” for children that the purpose of those rights are lost?

It’s a topic I see surfacing again and again, and it’ s not just California.  Planned Parenthood has it’s fingers in many pots in their attempts to liberate children from the care of their parents.

See this from CRI

—Beetle Blogger

CRI: Parents are the Enemy According to Some School Districts

The school board in Modesto City School District voted 4-3 to exclude parents from knowing when their children leave class for confidential medical services, in a meeting last night.

Modesto parents still have time to protect their rights, however, because the board members will cast a new vote on July 13.

“Only four people — three from Planned Parenthood, plus one activist– testified in favor of excluding parents. Every single additional testimony asked the board to include parents,” said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute.

She drove to Modesto and testified with parents, at the request of citizens in Modesto.

The discussion was over proposed Board Policy 5113, which pertains to confidential medical appointments for students as young as 12 years of age.

The associate superintendents who proposed this policy claimed that it would “meet a mandate for such policy and regulation.” BP 5113’s actual language was written by the California School Boards Association, which advises many districts on their school board policies.

In reality, there is no mandate.

State law says that “school authorities MAY excuse any pupil” (Cal. Educ.C. 46010.1, emphasis added). England pointed this out during the meeting. The law provides permission for implementing confidential release, but it certainly does not impose a mandate.

There are over 900 public school districts in California and many do not offer their students confidential medical release. Modesto’s current policy is parent- friendly.

Unfortunately, Modesto has sided with Planned Parenthood for now, against parents.

This vote was only the first reading, however, and the board’s final vote will be at its second reading during the next meeting. CRI is hopeful that one or two board members can be persuaded to vote for parental knowledge of what happens to their children at school.

Modesto parents and pastors left the meeting fired up. They are ready to tell their communities what is going on — so that more families can get involved, because people are still unaware.

Here are four ways to take action and defend parents’ rights in Modesto: Contact the board members, contact the media, educate your friends, and show up at the next board meeting.

Contact every board member, so they can go to the final vote saying that the community has spoken. Urge them to enact a parent-friendly policy. Tell them to include parents, not exclude parents. It is possible to sway some votes and protect families in Modesto.

Steven Grenbeaux – voted to exclude parents
Board President
Term: 2007-2011
grenbeaux.s@monet.k12.ca.us

Kimberly Gerber Spina – voted to exclude parents
Vice President
Term: 2007-2011
spina.k@monet.k12.ca.us

Nancy Cline – voted to INCLUDE parents
Term: 2001-2009
cline.n@monet.k12.ca.us

Steve Collins – voted to exclude parents
Term: 2005-2009
steveco854@aol.com

Gary Lopez – voted to INCLUDE parents
Term: 1999-2011
mfdfirecap@aol.com

Cindy Marks – voted to INCLUDE parents
Term: 1997-2009
marks.c@monet.k12.ca.us

Belinda Rolicheck – voted to exclude parents
Term: 2005-2009
brolicheck@hotmail.com

What is the Prevention First Act?

Taxpayer funded contraception with the exclusion of abstinence only sex eduction programs.

—Hattip to Secular Heretic :-)

« Older entries