Monday, February 20, 2012

Abortion is Murder, 9-16, March 2, 2012

Formerly Stop the Killing of Young People (skyp) and soon, perhaps, Stop Killing Preemies

March 2, 2012, Vol. 9 No. 16
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone, 484-706-4375
Circulation, 218
John Dunkle, Editor

Abortion is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go to the website. Faxes and emails are free but snail-mail is free only for PFCs, $100 for others.
Because I believe we should examine every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect those being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful and from those who defend them.. I’d also like to hear from those prolifers and pro-deathers who call force violence.

Prisoners for Christ:

1. Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180, USP McCreary, P.O. Box 3000, Pine Knot, KY 42635
2. Gibbons, Linda, Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St., P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
3. Griffin, Michael 310249, 5914 Jeff Ates Rd., Milton, FL 32583-0000
4. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
5. Knight, Peter James, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia
6. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, P.O. Box 300, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
7. Little, David SJRCC, 930 Old Black River Road, Saint John, NB E2J 4T3
8. Moose, Justin 27494-057 FCI Talladega, P.O. Box 1000, Talladega, AL 35160
9. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, CCM, 716 McDonough Blvd. SE, Atlanta, GA 30315
10. Roeder, Scott P. 65192, PO Box 2, Lansing Kansas 66043
11. Rogers, Bobby Joe 0202B, PO Box 17800
Pensacola, Florida 32522
12. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
13. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 3/31
14. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837

Even though it’s a shameful sin to abandon defenseless victims to their attackers, it’s a far worse sin when you attempt to pass the blame for that sin onto God by claiming that’s what he wanted you to do. And that’s precisely what so many people have done with their rejection of God’s clear and sensible instructions to defend the defenseless, and with their pretenses and fake excuses for rejecting those instructions. Pride is a terrible thing when it leads you to deny your own sin and instead say that God sinned. Peter James Knight

The New Abortion Providers

Since before the days of Roe v. Wade, a small number of doctors have quietly provided abortions in their offices (often only for patients with health insurance or who pay out of pocket). Their numbers have dwindled: in 2005, the Guttmacher Institute counted 367 abortion providers in doctors’ offices nationwide, down from more than 700 in 1982. Doctors’ offices now account for only 2 percent of the total number of procedures; hospitals account for barely 5 percent.
This highlights the challenge of making abortion truly mainstream — of moving beyond residency training and outside the haven of medical-school faculties, so that more doctors offer abortions when they join a regular OB-GYN or primary-care practice. As yet, all the success in training new doctors hasn’t translated into an increase in access. Abortion remains the most common surgical procedure for American women; one-third of them will have one by the age of 45. The number performed annually in the U.S. has largely held steady: 1.3 million in 1977 and 1.2 million three decades later. In metropolitan areas, women who want to go to their own doctor for an abortion can ask whether a practice offers abortion when they choose an OB-GYN or family physician. But in 87 percent of the counties in the U.S., where a third of women live, there is no known abortion provider.
OB-GYNs who learn to do abortions during residency are more likely to offer the procedure when they go off to practice, according to a 2008 study that Jody Steinauer helped write. And yet a study published this month, which she helped conduct (along with Darney, Landy and Lori Freedman of U.C.S.F.) offers an explanation for why the numbers of providers have continued to fall: the shift to group medical practice. The authors interviewed 30 OB-GYNs with abortion training. Eighteen said they wanted to provide abortions after residency. But 15 of them weren’t actually doing so. One doctor from a midsize city in the Midwest described her job interview at a group practice: “The one partner who’s very senior in the group and very pro-life, basically his only job is to sit with you and just tell you . . . ‘If you join this group, you will not be performing abortion procedures. And if that’s a problem for you, then you will work elsewhere. O.K.?’ ” Another doctor from the suburbs of a big Western city said that she refers her patients to Planned Parenthood. “Actually, in my first couple of months in practice, the people that are in my office here told me, ‘Don’t even bother,’ ” she said of wanting to perform abortions. For family-practice doctors, medical-malpractice insurance is an additional barrier. According to one 2008 study, coverage for abortion often costs them an extra $10,000 to $15,000 a year.
Even doctors who practice solo and have all the insurance they need can find themselves in delicate negotiations over abortion. Ray, who is in his 30s, is an OB-GYN in upstate New York who learned to do abortions during his residency. As a teenager, Ray (who asked that I use only his middle name) saw his brother’s fear when he got his girlfriend pregnant. Race also mattered in Ray’s decision to become a provider; he is African-American. “We utilize the service a lot, but publicly we don’t really support it,” he said of the local black community.
We talked in his office, which was simple and old-school: issues of Redbook and Good Housekeeping were in the racks in the waiting room. The office is in a building that has a volatile history. In the early 1990s, protesters from Operation Rescue came frequently to the building to protest the presence of an outspoken OB-GYN who provided abortions. When Ray took over a different practice in the building, he decided to get hospital privileges so he could schedule surgical abortions in the O.R. He also wanted to give patients the pills for a medical abortion in his office.
But first Ray sat down to talk with Ann, the nurse who’d worked for more than 25 years in the practice. Now in her early 60s, Ann (her middle name) is a Catholic grandmother who celebrates Mass every Sunday. She was adamantly opposed to abortion. She was also a fixture in the office; she knew all the patients. “Here I am, a young doctor, taking over an old practice with a lot of women patients who have kids my age,” said Ray, who has children of his own. “I needed someone to back me up when I got here. She did that for me. I didn’t want to let her go.”
And so Ray and Ann worked out a compromise: He would handle the abortion patients entirely on his own. When a woman calls to ask for a termination, Ann and the office manager take down the patient’s name and number and then have nothing more to do with the case. Ray does the scheduling, counseling and billing along with the care. He and Ann agreed that when he did medical abortions, he would give the patients the pills in the office, because the women actually ended their pregnancies at home. “We have a mutual understanding: no surgical abortions here, and we treat medical abortion as a gray area,” Ray says.
When I talked to Ann — Ray offered her his office chair while he saw a patient — she said that when Ray took over the practice, she and the office manager, another woman in her 60s, weren’t sure if they would stay. “We didn’t want a young doctor with attitude,” Ann said. “We’re too old for that. But we gave him a chance. And he has exceeded our expectations wildly. I thank God every day, because he’s so good with the patients. I’m just blessed. Other than the little termination thing — ” she made a small box with her fingers and then moved her hands to her left, as if to set the box aside.
Ann reassures herself that Ray is never casual about abortion. “He makes the women think about it longer, to make sure they know this is something you have to live with forever.” She also told me something Ray hadn’t mentioned. “If a patient calls and she’s not sure, I ask, ‘Have you looked into other things?’ I say, ‘Come in and let’s talk.’ I tell her that if adoption might be a difficult situation, there is other help out there. I may refer her to a crisis pregnancy center” — an anti-abortion organization that counsels pregnant women to keep their babies. In 2006, Congressional investigators found that most federally financed crisis pregnancy centers they contacted gave out wrong information like tying abortion to breast cancer or infertility or mental illness. Yet as part of the compromise between doctor and nurse, that is where Ann says she refers some women who call Ray’s office.
At the same time, Ray is on guard for the warning signs that a pro-life activist is posing as a patient: the woman who calls at an odd time of day close to the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, or who says that her name is “Rebekah, spelled the Biblical way,” or who seems too motivated. “When Operation Rescue was in the building, it was borderline terrifying,” Ann told me. “Seriously. You didn’t know — would there be a pipe bomb? I don’t want the doctor to get in trouble. I don’t want to go back to that.”
Even if doctors like Ray were to suddenly multiply, stand alone abortion clinics would still be the mainstay of abortion provision in the U.S. for the foreseeable future. For one thing, the clinics are efficient and relatively low cost. For another, “training to competency” demands a high volume of patients for residents to treat. Most hospitals and doctor’s offices do dozens or at the most hundreds of abortions a year. High-volume clinics do thousands.
Given the importance of the clinics, many abortion-rights physicians would like to pull them into the medical-school orbit. At the moment, universities tend to keep clinics at arm’s length. If they send residents for training, it’s sometimes for an off-site rotation that the medical-school faculty does not supervise. But the relationship can be closer.
I went to visit Rachael Phelps, who is the associate director of Planned Parenthood for the Rochester/Syracuse region and a fellowship-trained doctor who works in a stand-alone clinic. She is a pediatrician with a special interest in adolescent reproductive health. Phelps, who is 40, has flower stickers plastered on the E-ZPass on her windshield. She is steely, though: she does the kind of job that many other doctors shy away from — she walks or drives by protesters every day. When we ate lunch at a restaurant down the street from her office, they waited for her outside. “Dr. Phelps, you kill babies and hurt women,” one shouted as she walked past. “What’s the matter with you?”
Before Phelps became a doctor, she was a patient. As a teenager, she developed endometriosis, a painful, scarring condition with no known cause in which the cells that line the uterus — and sometimes other parts of the body — grow out of control. Phelps’s case went undiagnosed for years. During her first year of medical school, at Johns Hopkins, she had major abdominal surgery to reconstruct her ovaries, which had been damaged by the spreading uterine cells. But nine months later, the endometriosis had spread again. The only treatment option left was a hysterectomy and removal of her ovaries. She was 23. Her doctors balked. “The doctors didn’t have the guts to say it,” she says. “I had to beg for the thing I didn’t want. I promised myself that if I ever got well enough to finish medical school, I would never do that to a patient.”
At Planned Parenthood, Phelps can throw herself into that promise. “Women who come to us for abortions are sometimes scared and upset and heartbroken,” she says. They often have young children at home. “If I have the capability to help them, then I should do it. Because most people will not. So if I’m willing, how can I stand by?”
While doctors like Godfrey bring abortion into academia, Phelps is bringing academia to abortion. She has been working with two members of the University of Rochester OB-GYN faculty to start a joint program for residents. The idea is for all three physicians to work alongside one another at Planned Parenthood while they train younger doctors — another kind of mainstreaming.
If you think of the effort to increase training and access to abortion as a marathon, has it reached the halfway point? I asked Rachael Phelps a version of this question when she dropped me off at the Rochester airport. She looked out the window, at all the people whom she wished could feel the urgency she does, and pointed out that change in medicine comes slowly. “It takes 10 years from the beginning of medical school to get someone fully trained,” she said. “Remember, we’ve had a lot of catching up to do.” She brightened, mentioning a family-planning faculty position at Syracuse University that had just been filled after a three-year search. “It is changing,” she said. “When I was in medical school, there was no curriculum, no national conferences with exposure to speakers with amazing training. Now I’m here, and so are my colleagues at the university, and we have this new person coming to Syracuse. It’s so much easier when you’re not on your own.”
Emily Godfrey, too, is looking ahead. She’s about to apply for tenure — the only clinical faculty member in her department to do so. “You know, we’re now getting to the point where the people in our cohort are starting to take on these positions at the senior level,” she said. “It kind of makes you laugh, to think of yourself like that. But we see the new residents and fellows coming in, and we have a whole structure set up for them.”
We were talking in the office of one of Godfrey’s OB-GYN colleagues. The door opened, and a 33-year-old family-planning fellow walked in. She and Godfrey conferred about a paper they’re writing together. Then the younger doctor hurried off. She had patients to call.

This concludes the pro-abortion piece I’ve been running for five issues. James Kopp urged me to post it because of its insight into the current state of legal baby-killing.

And here Jimbo continues with something I posted at the end of the last issue:

2. OK, let’s give Mom and Dad some credit. They bypass the coward murderers who tied down their daughter and rush to help her. But wait! There's a sign on the RR easement: "No trespassing. Trespassers punishable by up to---
Can you seriously expect me to believe a real Mom or Dad would hesitate one second in running past this sign to cut their daughter loose? And yet this stupid sign is exactly what stops 99% of prolifers from doing simple low-force rescues. A sign!
Are your feet touching the ground? Can you feel the train coming yet? This is your daughter here, not just somebody's daughter.
3 Mom and Dad grab their tools in both hands, and run past the sign. They're within10 feet of their daughter. A RR detective blocks them. “Can’t you read the sign?” Etc.
Can you imagine Mom and Dad stopping to talk to this guy? About Congress? The Supreme Court? Republicans? Presidents? and yet this is exactly what 99% of the 99% addicted-to-failure prolife movement does all day long, five decades now. From the babies’ perspective, they might as well be talking football. Actually, they are talking football.
Feel that train coming yet? See the smoke yet?
4. The RR detective is bored. Mom and Pop don’t advance. Impasse. Suddenly, Mom and Pop fall to their knees. “Oh Lord," they cast their gaze heavenward. "Please hear our prayer," etc. Prayer is good, but never, never, never as a substitute for the prayer-of-motion called giving a glass of cold water. Substitution is wrong! Can you imagine Our Lord saying, "I'll pray for you," when any one of the many suffering people came to Him for the healing He could give? Can you imagine praying (and nothing else) while your daughter is tied to a track? And yet the prolife movement prides itself on this blasphemy, imagining itself pious while using God's Name as an excuse, or cover, for sin by omission. See the smoke yet? (tbc)

See Peter’s comment on p. 1. This is so good I plan to run the whole essay again once I finish posting sections.

Couple issues back I posted an exchange between Colin
Flagstaff and Scott Evans. Here Patrick Gilmore gets involved [and I, in brackets

Patrick, Hi Scott, I am not Colin, but allow me to add my $0.000000000000134323 (inflation adjusted ).
Now, in response, please answer "yes" or "no" before expounding: If someone is raped by her father and becomes pregnant, and the fetus clearly has sever problems (deformities, mental problems, whatever you please), should the mother be forced to carry the fetus to full term?
If you answer 'yes', are you willing to care for that child until it dies, as it will never be able to care for itself? [“‘It’ doesn’t die, Patrick! She or he dies.] How about just pay for the care of the child? TTFN, patrick [What does “TTFN” mean?]

Scott, Yes, Patrick. She should be forced to carry the baby to full term, and just because you are not willing to take care of the baby or pay for the baby's care doesn't mean the baby should be intentionally killed. [Cut and dried, no self-respecting killers’ helper should respond. But one always does.]

Patrick, Glad you are so clear on the subject. It is good to know how others think, it informs one's opinions, even if one disagrees. And I do respect someone who has the courage of his convictions. Hypocrisy is one of the worst sins in my book.
Obviously, a very large majority of people in this country disagree (including me, if it was not clear). In fact, most people in every country not run by a theocracy I have ever researched disagree. But that likely does not matter to you. The vast majority of people in this world are not Christian, either. (And many who are argue over tiny differences in how to worship Jesus, to the point of actually killing one another many times through history.)
Of course, none of that means you should give up your faith. As I said, I have respect for people who stand by what they believe. So, if it matters to you, I applaud your clarity and forthrightness.
BTW: You did not answer the second question ("if you answer 'yes'...). TTFN, patrick

Scott, I did answer the question but you missed the point. It doesn't matter whether I would be willing to take care of the baby or not, nor whether I would pay for the baby's expenses. And you wouldn't be willing to, either, Patrick, or you wouldn't advocate killing the child. That is not a good reason to intentionally kill a baby because a good reason to intentionally kill a baby doesn't exist. It's actually a bit of a red herring for you to even bring it up. They're babies, and it's always wrong to intentionally kill a baby. Period.

Patrick, You did not answer the question. I asked if you would take care of or pay for the care of the baby. The answer is not in your email. You can say it doesn't matter, but that isn't an answer either. You are good at deflecting, though.
By the way, quoting the old testament is an interesting deflection as well [Scott must have quoted the Old Testament in his earlier exchange]. I said before I respect people who have the courage of their convictions. I find people who pick and choose which quotes to follow - and think others should follow - to be .. well, let's just say I do not have respect for them. Can you think of any quotes in either the old or new testament that you do not follow? Ye who is without sin and all that.... [“Call no man ‘father.’”]
Not that it matters, I think we have run the course here. I'm sure everyone else on the list is bored anyway. Your position is more than clear. We disagree. As the law and the majority of people in this country also disagree with you, I'm afraid you will have to wait for god to judge us. If you are certain he will, please let him do it and stop trying to do it yourself. He doesn't want you to, and we don't care if you do.

Scott, What makes you believe God doesn't want me to judge others?

Dear John, The funny thing about the "Trust Women" slogan is that if we said "Trust Children" instead, we still would not let them kill their moms.
Ironically, legal abortion lets women kill their children to cover up for untrustworthy sexual behaviors, whether women's or men's.
Put another way, legal abortion testifies to the distrust and embarrassment our nation has experienced due to our society's sexual behaviors.
So what the "Trust Women" slogan is really saying is that even though our society's sexual behaviors cannot be trusted, we can at least 'trust' women to get abortions to cover up for the embarrassment.
This explains why the "Trust Women" slogan is the favorite of abortion doctors. Because when women show up at the clinic, it is like saying, "See how trustworthy they are?" Sincerely, Cal.

Dear John, Child homicide in its most clandestine form of legal abortion has never been officially reported in the United States. And while there has been some degree of so called voluntary reporting over the years, in past years a number of states have dropped out of the voluntary reporting program. Unaware of these reporting dropouts, some people get confused that abortion rates themselves have dropped dramatically, when in truth the figures no longer include numbers for several states, including the most populous state, California, which is the reputed leader in net numbers of abortions. So to put things in perspective, sometimes it helps to go back to older data.
A little known fact is that the U.S. marshal is the one who has been ultimately handed the legal authority to conduct abortions in the United States. The U.S. marshal is charged with the task of conducting the lethal executions authorized by the federal courts. That does not mean the marshal necessarily performs the executions. In other words, he does not necessarily pull the hangman's noose. Instead, he may just look outside his window to make sure no one interferes with the conduct of the execution as authorized by the courts. But if someone does interfere, then the marshal will step in, because it is ultimately his duty to "conduct" the executions. This explains why the U.S. Marshals Service is the one to step in whenever someone interferes with the conduct of legal abortions.
To put matters into statistical perspective, the U.S. Marshals Service reports having 93 sworn U.S. marshals and 3,953 deputy U.S. marshals and criminal investigators, for a total of 4046 men and women. If we multiply this figure by 365, for as many days in the year, we arrive at 1,476,790 people. Now according to the Statistical Abstract of the United States, back in 1990, when all 50 states were participating in so called voluntary reporting of legal abortions, there were 1,609,000 abortions. When we take into account rates of multiple gestations (twins), this means over 1,663,000 people killed, not counting the women who died in botched abortions. Now if we divide this figure by 365, for days in the year, we get a homicide rate of 4556 children per day.
At these rates, this means on average 510 more children were killed each day at abortion clinics than there are U.S. marshals today. Sincerely, Cal

Hi John, I just noticed your statement "I’d also like to hear from those prolifers and pro-deathers who call force violence."
The nuance between "force" and "violence" is largely one of the degree of control and, perhaps in the minds of some, law. But in reality the two are quite a lot alike. Both communicate a greater pressure exerted against a lesser pressure, just simple Newtonian physics. Force may have the nuance of something done more strategically, but nonetheless it is still "violence" when it involves the non-voluntary removal of an object in space.
In the public mind "violence" is a squeamish term, but if the public really thought it through, when a police officer shoots down an armed suspect, though we typically say he "used force," we also mean he did it by means of violence. We just want to lay a patina of "civility" over what society has agreed can happen, versus what society frowns upon. It is a word-game and the use of euphemism every bit as much as calling a serial-murderer of unborn children a "doctor," or even an "aboortionist." He or she, in reality, is just the worst sort of murderer. And we all agree murderers have made a decision to risk that violence will potentially keep them in hiding, on the run, or even cost them their freedom or life.
Pare it all down, whether one uses "legal" or "illegal" power over another person, another society, or nation, the exercise of an unequal amount of power results in violence. So in that regard we might look at force as the pressure brought to bear, with the overall resultant change as an act of violence.
Why do I care about this?
History, in both biblical and history books, shows that for a culture steeped in its own self-gratification, unwilling to honor God and accommodate others, violence has been the mechanism by which great societal changes have come about, whether for good or ill. God has repeatedly required man to use "force," "violence" and He makes no apology. The exception is when God takes it upon Himself to remove, rather miraculously, the demand for force or violence, whatever term you choose to call it. Look in the past, revolutions are rarely peaceful, and never construed as such by those resisting that change.
America needs change in order to survive. There can be no doubt about the fact that the violence of abortion needs to be countered by an opposite, equal or greater re-action. That means violence gets resolved through the violence of those who oppose that evil agenda.
I believe the anti-abortion movement should avoid euphemisms and speak plainly; stop abortion, or we will stop it by violence of one sort or another. That's pretty simple. And since there is always resistance, whether at the ballot box, in stinging "letters to the editor," attempting to pass a form of legislature against the will of its opponents, blocking doors, standing as a presence to shame others into another form of behavior through picketing, leafleting, even side-walk counseling, opening a CPRC next to a mill, or using an unstable substance to separate bricks, mortar, even flesh and blood, all of these are forceful and act as a violence against the lawfully accepted paradigm of abortion.
Every antiabortionist, we might argue, prefers violence against legalized abortion and for the sake of the unborn rather than maintaining the status quo. Some try to act as if their violence is more spiritual, more sanctified, but its all violence and should rightly be presented as such because, one might argue, it is the justice of Genesis 9:6 and a balancing of the scales. And it may be the better way of cuing the conscience of the public toward protecting itself against "violence" by having a greater desire to see abortion gone. And it is blunt and truthful.
Those are my thoughts in response to your statement. I think it is fruitful for the antiabortion movement to think more deeply and honestly. In that way I believe we communicate to others the high cost of allowing serial murderers to advance their agenda.

So, what think you?
Catherine Ramey, M.Div.

Obvious again – you can learn more about baby murder from a committed killers’ helper than you can from almost any prolifer. Listen to what my buddy Pat Richards says about the Komen/Planned Parenthood fiasco:

Well, the folks at the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation really put their foot in it, didn’t they?
I’ve always thought they were a good group, those pink ribbon folks. Great cause, raise lots of money, good PR machine. But then they installed this Karen Handel as VP of Public Affairs and, as we’ve now discovered, she’s had a thing for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) for years. When she ran for Governor in Georgia in 2010, she actually said that she is “pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood.” What I can’t understand is why the board at the Foundation would hire someone with a clear right wing agenda in the first place. What were they thinking?
So, somewhere along the line, the Foundation’s Board of Directors adopted a policy saying they would not fund any group that was “under investigation.” Geez, I wonder who put that on the agenda? Then, when the resolution was being discussed, at one point it was made clear that, if the Board adopted the new rule, the approximately $700,000 in annual funds to PPFA would be on the chopping block. And this was all because some yahoo congressman from Florida named Cliff Stearns, a 100% right to lifer, held a hearing on PPFA’s financial practices in the hopes of trying to determine if they were using federal dollars to provide abortions. I worked on Capitol Hill for years – I can tell you that Stearns’ prime motivation was not necessarily to uncover something, although that would have been a nice by-product for him, but rather to make a name for himself in the right to life community. Then, you watch, very soon he will be going to them to ask for a few more extra campaign dollars.
Still, someone at the Foundation (guess who?) learned about this sham hearing and came up with the idea of using it to pursue an anti-PPFA agenda. OMG! They are being investigated (which if I recall is not a conviction). Off with their heads!
Then the poop hit the fan.
The first thing I have to do is give the anti-abortion movement credit – they are tenacious. They wake up I the morning trying to figure out another way to hurt women, uh, excuse me, save the babies and they do not let go. And in this case, while I cannot prove it, their fingerprints are all over this decision by the Foundation.
But I don’t necessarily feel sorry for PPFA. That’s because within hours, their own PR machine went into overdrive and the money started pouring in. If you saw the implorations for money, you would have thought that thousands of women were standing in line to get mammograms (even though most PPFA clinics just refer for mammograms) and, unless folks sent money yesterday, those women would be left out in the cold. And, as I write this, with the pre-pre-pre Super Bowl program in the background, PPFA has raised more money than the Komen folks were giving them in the first place and now we know that Komen has reversed their decision.
So, now that PPFA can get their money from Komen again, my only question is will they be returning all of the money that they raised?

Karen Handel! Cliff Stearns! I waded through lots of prolife comment before I learned the names of our two new heroes.
I also learned that Obama is in for his second term. And I also became more convinced that peaceful, quiet prayer, with the vary occasional outbreak of force, just ain’t cutting it as we prolifers race towards our deaths, living “free” through the most vicious holocaust the world has ever known.


Rev. Donald Spitz tells us that “Scott Roeder is still saving babies in Wichita – see last line

A judge has set a trial date in the government's lawsuit against an abortion opponent accused of sending a threatening letter to a Wichita doctor training to offer abortions.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Kenneth Gale scheduled the trial against anti-abortion activist Angel Dillard for Feb. 5, 2013. His order on Thursday also sets a timeline for the parties to try to settle the case.
Ms. Dillard, of Valley Center, told Dr. Mila Means in January that she would have to check under her car every day because someone might place an explosive there.
No abortions have been openly done in Wichita since Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by an abortion opponent in 2009.

Thanks Be To God

This week, 2/13, Pat Richard’s pro-death essay in the blog attacks us who finally realized that the Girl Scouts has been infiltrated by perverts and other anti-Catholics. Here are the last four paragraphs of Pat’s essay:

Now, I normally disagree with the right wing and with pro-lifers. But, as I’ve written before, I do respect most of them and their views. But for gosh sakes, are they losing their collective minds??? Boycott the Girl Scouts???

Look I understand the quest for purity, to try to be consistent in your beliefs in pursuit of your ultimate goal. But does these folks have nothing else to do? And are they now going to look that little pimply-faced girl scout in the eyes and tell her that they are not buying their cookies because of abortion? Hell, that little kid who is just trying to raise money for their field trip doesn’t even know what abortion is. But, no, say the pro-lifers – we need to make them aware as early as possible of the “horrors” of abortion. Kinda reminds me of how the Nazis were teaching their kids at an early age how to hate the Jews.
Happily, the boycott doesn’t seem to be taking hold. One spokesperson recently actually said that initial sales of the cookies this year are up more than 6 percent.
And, as for me, when little Sarah comes to my doorstep this year, I’m gonna put in an extra order of those double chocolate chip cookies that are so bad for me!

I know it’s difficult, but I do believe that Pat is ingenuous here. However, how can he not see that this legal child-killing battle in the never-ending war between God and Satan is widespread and involves children, especially children?
How can Pat not realize that the Satanic forces want pre-adolescents to interact overtly sexually with others? They infiltrated the elementary schools in 2009 and they infiltrated the Girl Scouts three years earlier. Much to our shame, it’s taken us that many years to react. And Pat is reacting to our reaction.

I wonder why the perverts have moved in on the Girl Scouts but not the Boy Scouts, yet. Any ideas?


No comments: