Clinics on strike, unborn children rejoice

The Silent Scream has turned into the silent cheer as
Spain abortion clinics on strike

The private clinics that carry out more than 90% of legal abortions in Spain have begun a week-long strike calling for changes to the law.

Here's to hoping they stay on strike longer.

They say women and doctors should have better legal protection. The strike is expected to affect up to 2,000 women.

2,000 babies remain. un-affected.

Funny how with Europe's low birthrate, it has seemed the babies were on strike. Or perhaps the storks are picketing for better hours.

via the CMR

I am sure Margret Sanger would approve

Of the wonderful job of parenting these two are doing. Their daughter is a liberated adult entertainment worker (alleged) but the parents didn't approve of her being pregnant, especially since the father was black. So they tie her up at gunpoint and tried to force her to get an abortion.

Sad story all around, but by the looks of the photo at least the beautiful baby lived.

Big misconception

Dawn Eden is on patrol and she has quite a number of Planned Parenthood posters.  And even more here from around the world.  Some fit in quite well with Margaret Sanger's vision of babies as "human weeds"

My favorite line is the subtitle

Because we love children

Sure, and I donate to Planned Parenthood regularly.

statistician and politicians

There could be a debate between which is a better liar. But I would have to say that statistician, as opposed to the politicians, are generally using numbers to work towards a solution. But when a politician turns statistician, you can generally turn the channel.

Looks like the pro-abortion crown doesn't even believe Giuliani. Abortion Advocate Says Rudy Giuliani's Adoption Claims "Unsupportable"

But Richards says the increase in adoptions Giuliani refers to is children in the city's foster care system and "not in the rate at which women were continuing unwanted pregnancies and placing their infants for adoption rather than having abortions."

So as the saying goes, there are lies, damn lies and damn politicians using statistics. Of course we could always go to the tape for the proof.

Earlier this month, Fordham University political science professor Bruce Berg reviewed all the tapes of Mayor Giuliani's press conferences dating back to 1996 and said he never once saw the mayor promote adoption.

Making waves

Jennifer over at "Et Tu" posts a good summary of the tainted vaccine issue; Vaccines and aborted fetal tissue

With open arms

When introducing a one's business to the neighboring community, some find it wise to conceal the exact nature of that business. But of course it is just that they "want to introduce ourselves to the community ... rather than be defined by our adversaries."

Nothing sez "so nice to meet you" like "Hello, we are your new neighbors. Never mind the guillotines and torture instruments, we just wanted to say hi. Perhaps borrow a cup of sugar or meat cleaver..."

Illinois Planned Parenthood Built New Aurora Abortion Business Secretly

Aurora, IL (LifeNews.com) -- As more reports surface on the new abortion center Planned Parenthood is building Aurora, Illinois, pro-life advocates are concerned about how it was built with so little advanced notice. The 22,000-foot building is one of the largest abortion centers in the nation but Planned Parenthood was able to build it under the radar.

As LifeNews.com reported Tuesday, Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area will open the abortion business in the 200 block of North Oakhurst Drive, located in the DuPage County section of Aurora.

But the new facility escaped the attention of pro-life advocates and area residents until recently in part because signs at the location carried Planned Parenthood's name for its new building -- the "Gemini Health Center."

Work crews working on the abortion center have been working on it for eight months but no one knew the facility would be used for abortions until a contractor tipped off local pro-life advocates when he grew concerned about the amount of security and bulletproof glass for the building.

When money is not an object, zoning rules and such don't really apply.

"No really, no reason to object to our business. We just thought we would sneak in and say 'Surprise.' In a fun sort of way, you know."

Thin pudding

If the proof is in the pudding, this writer might want to find a better recipe. She is slaying imaginary dragons here, but when looking through brown colored glasses, one's outlook tends to be a bit crappy.

Washington Post Film Critic Upset New Movies Don't Promote Abortion

The Washington Post's film critic Ann Hornaday wants abortion. In the movies, that is. In her July 15 piece Hornaday complains that two box office successes this summer, “Waitress” and “Knocked Up,” feature main characters that are pregnant. Both are unmarried and less than thrilled with their pregnancies. Both have their babies.

“It’s a setup that has some viewers, especially women who came of age in a post-Roe v. Wade America, wondering just what world these movies are living in.

...
”Hollywood's liberal agenda hangs on a whole lot more than two pregnant characters, whose very pregnancies are the crux of the movie plots.

For Hornaday, really good movies that deal with abortion include the “fearless” “Citizen Ruth,” described as a “scathingly funny satire about abortion politics.”

Yeah, “abortion” and “funny” go together really well.

Hornaday and other feminist, pro-abortion journalists just can't fathom a world – the real world – where some people, regardless of marital status, will choose to carry a pregnancy to term. Will choose to give birth the human being growing within them. Will choose life.

Lots of people are doing it, Ann. In the real world and in the movies.

Breaking rank

I would personally love to see some leading Demos break rank with the party line. Their stubborn adherence to defending death is only offset by the stupidity and gross overspending of the Republicans.Why Pro-Choice Is a Bad Choice for Democrats - New York Times via Mark Shea

Over 18 months, I traveled to 20 states listening to women of all ages, races, tax brackets and points of view speak at length on the issues they care about heading into ’08. They convinced me that the conventional wisdom was wrong about the last presidential contest, that Democrats did not lose support among women because “security moms” saw President Bush as the better protector against terrorism. What first-time defectors mentioned most often was abortion.

Wow, you mean when Hillary, Obama and others defend the infanticide known as Partial Birth Abortion, it drives people away?

Again and again, these voters said Democrats are too unwilling to tolerate dissent on abortion. It is a point of orthodoxy no more open to debate within the party than the ordination of women is in Rome.

For people who claim to be liberal, they sure are hardheaded.

Is it the end?

Either way there is a silver lining. If Giuliani doesn't get the nomination, perhaps the GOP will recognize the need for the pro-life plank in their platform. His downward spiral certainly has shown the conviction of the moral conservatives.

If he gets the nomination and proceeds to lose the election, (I can't see a pro-war, anti-life candidate winning. Kinda like the worst of both worlds.) he could take the entire Republican party down in flames with him and we could see a legitimate third party emerge. It may be a painful four years, but similar to purgatory; it would be worth it to break up the current stranglehold of corruption.

Pro-Life Leaders Won’t Vote for Rudy Giuliani Over Abortion

Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention was a strong supporter of President Bush during his 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns but said he would not vote for Giuliani in the 2008 general election, even though the Democratic nominee will almost assuredly be pro-abortion as well.

"I'm not going to vote for a pro-choice candidate, period," he said, speaking on behalf of himself and not the convention.

Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, was equally strong in his comments about how he would treat Giuliani in the voting booth.

"Speaking as a private citizen, no, no, I could not support (Giuliani)," Perkins told Politico. "The 20 years I've been involved in politics, the life issue has been at the very top. How could I turn my back on that?"

He said he would likely support a third-party candidate should Giuliani carry the GOP standard next fall.

Selective screening perhaps?

DFO at Huckleberries links to an article where doctors may be rethinking a blanket recommendation.

How a blanket recommendation was considered a good idea in the first place I don't know? Good for doctors and the hospitals who stand to profit, but following a herd mentality is rarely good for the patients.

Mammograms from ages 40-50? Maybe not

Reopening a long-running debate, the American College of Physicians, which represents 120,000 internists, plans to issue new guidelines today that instead urge women in their 40s to consult with their doctors individually about whether to get the breast X-rays.

The group based its recommendations on a comprehensive review of research on mammography that concluded the benefit is less clear for women in their 40s than for those 50 and older, and that screening carries significant risks, including exposure to radiation and unnecessary biopsies, surgery and chemotherapy.

The guidelines conflict with long-standing recommendations from several other leading medical groups, including the American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute.

It is good to see that they realize the risks may actually be risks and therefore they blanket recommendation doesn't fit. Of course the two cancer conglomerates don't want anyone to intrude on their fund-mongering. They make a healthy living off the fear of cancer, and turning that fear into donations for their research that hasn't yielded much success.

Perhaps there is another way to narrow the field before recommending screenings.

But others said the recommendations represent a more nuanced approach that better reflects what is known about the benefits and drawbacks of mammography.

Perhaps it is time to look at filtering the screening to the high risk groups.

Pushing back

Give the bishops this, they have a limit.

Having been pushed around and barely a few responding to the false teacher, they finally reached the limit. They were pushed far enough that the had to take a stand and did so as a group.

US bishops offer ‘public correction’ of contraception, abortion, marriage pamphlets

The Committee on Doctrine of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has declared that pamphlets published by Professor Daniel Maguire of theology at Marquette University on contraception, abortion, and same-sex marriage, “do not present authentic Catholic teaching.”

“The views about contraception, abortion, same-sex marriage, as well as the very nature of Church teaching and its authoritative character, cross the legitimate lines of theological reflection and simply enter into the area of false teaching,” the doctrine committee said.

“Such mistaken views should not be confused with the moral teaching of the Catholic Church.”

No wishy-washy terms. Just the truth.

Maguire sent two pamphlets to all Catholic U.S. bishops on June 19. One is entitled “The Moderate Roman Catholic Position on Contraception and Abortion.” The other is “A Catholic Defense of Same-Sex Marriage.”

In a statement issued by the committee last week, the bishops said it was important to “offer a public correction of the erroneous views” in the pamphlets since it is apparent Maguire went to considerable efforts to give his views wide distribution.

Seems as though he wanted a confrontation. Was Satan getting this bold, or is this guy just crying out for correction? Maguire's pamphlets are a good synopsis of all the errors used to promote contraception, abortion and homosexuality as acceptable practices.

In his pamphlets, Maguire argues that “there is no one position” on contraception, abortion, homosexual acts and same-sex marriage that can be called “Catholic.” He pursues his argument, stating that “there is no authentic Church teaching [on these issues] that is binding on all members of the Catholic Church.”

If he truly believes there is "no one position", then it is evident he has read "no one" definitive writings on the matter. The popes and the councils have been very clear. Church teaching and the Bible are very clear.

And now we can add the US Bishops to that list of being very clear.