Tuesday, October 02, 2012

"Contraception" is Murder, 10-5, September, 2012

Formerly, Abortion is Murder, and, before that, skyp (stop  the killing of young people)


September, 2012, Vol. 10   No. 5

PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603

Phone, 484-706-4375

Web, skyp1.blogspot.com

Circulation, 205


  “Contraception”  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.  Emails are free but snail-mail is free only for PFCs, $800 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 who oppose the prolife use of force and call it 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.               Grady, Francis Gerald # 040368, Outagamie Co Jail 5HLD03L, P.O. Box 1779, Appleton, WI 54912-1779

4.                Griffin, Michael 310249,  5914 Jeff Ates Rd., Milton, FL 32583-0000

5.              Holt, Gregory 129616, Varner Super Max, P. O. Box 600, Grady AR 71644-0600

6.                Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802    6/30 

7.                Knight, Peter James,  P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia 

8.                Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, P.O. Box 300, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472 

9.                Little, David SJRCC, 930 Old Black River Road, Saint John, NB E2J 4T3

10.               Moose, Justin 27494-057   FCI Talladega, P.O. Box 1000, Talladega, AL 35160 

11.               Mower,  Donny Eugene 65828-097, FCI Terminal Island, PO Box 3007, San Pedro, CA 90731

12..              Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, CCM,  716 McDonough Blvd. SE, Atlanta, GA 30315

13.               Roeder, Scott P.  65192, PO Box 2, Lansing Kansas 66043

14.               Rogers, Bobby Joe,  Santa Rosa County Jail, P.O. Box 7129, Milton FL 32572

15.               Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500

16.               Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093    3/31

17.           Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, U.S.P., P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg  PA 17837


  My buddy from Manhattan recently sent this letter to his cardinal: 

  Cardinal Dolan: 

  This is not going to be an anti-Catholic and/or an anti-Catholic Church ranting missive – as I am a devout, practicing Roman Catholic . . .  Rather, it is going to put forth questions which demand to be answered, questions from a frightened Catholic who is questioning the ability of the leadership of Holy Mother Church to lead us during these times of great evil and travail.  You, Sir, have left me with doubts as to your own fitness for your high post.  You appear to typify our American Roman Catholic hierarchical shepherds who are in intellectual, theological, and moral disarray concerning their handling of the three greatest existing evils: 1) abortion, 2) homosexuality, 3) political corruption.  These have now infected our Church and caused it to lead its flock off the Golden Path, away from a beatifically beautiful eternal life with God, to, perhaps, eternal damnation.

  Why am I greatly upset?  In explanation let me fill you in on my own background.

  As Sophie Petrillo on the TV program “The Golden Girls” would say, “Picture this – sunny Sicily, February 1940” . . . except it’s Nazi Germany and the southern portion of its capital, Berlin.  My great-grandparents on both sides of the family, my mother’s and my father’s, were part of a six-family clique, sharing life, love, and religion, and raising their families as Orthodox Jews – twelve parents and twenty-seven children. 

  On February 19th, 1940, the German Supreme Court ruled that my ancestral heritage was to be completely exterminated.  Six of the oldest children escaped into Austria, sneaked into Switzerland and then managed to come to America’s shores and entered our once great and God-fearing, God-loving country. Three days later, on Washington’s Birthday in fact, everyone else was rounded up – cattle, herded to Auschwitz for the final solution.  The escapees married Americans, producing my grandparents who with God created my parents, who in turn blessed me with life.

  Some evil force wanted my entire group of forbearers to be wiped out simply because they were Jews.  The highest German court said that the Horowitzes, the Freemans, the Berliners, the Steinbergs, the Schwartzes, and the Levys were not humans because they were Jewish.  To quote the court: “. . . one can dispose of these (people?), these Jews, as one sees fit to do, for they are not human.”

  Humanity finds it hard to profit from, or to learn from, its own mistakes – for on January 22nd, 1973, our Supreme Court, by a vote of 7 to 2, ruled that babies are non-people in that they have no personhood under our Constitution and therefore are neither entitled to any civil rights nor any protections of constitutional covenants.  It is permissible, ergo, to subject them to that heinous murder, abortion. Just twenty-four years and five months after the Nuremberg Trial, we entered into the nadir of a morally decadent abyss.


  I married a Catholic woman and have lovingly converted to my, yours, our Faith, Catholicism.  Catholicism is now a living, loving, integral part of my soul, mind and body.

  The death of my ancestors parallels our own holocaust. Six millions of Jews were exterminated because of what they were . . . seventy to eighty millions of Americans were slaughtered for what they are, the weakest and smallest of us, the unborn human, the most helpless, the baby, the unborn child.  And we yet allow this demonic abomination to continue, unfettered, for this is the mistaken law of america.  What of His law?  This is a shibbolethic infanticide called Roe-v-Wade.  Wake up America!  Any politician who champions the murdering cause of the advocates of Roe-v-Wade must forever be morally and legally debarred from holding public office – of any kind. 

  Two cases: 

  You said this in a speech give at Fordham University of Law, as reported by Beth Griffin in Catholic New York:

  “A reliance on the natural law and human rights will enable us to move the culture and thus our laws in the direction of authentic respect for human life.  It will be a gradual, incremental process . . . and requires compromise and acceptance of intermediate steps.”

  Sir, one must never compromise with evil, or its advocates and practitioners thereto.  Why have you not castigated Fordham University for allowing its students and faculty to purchase insurance policies from its health insurance carriers to pay for abortions and contraception?  Sir, how is your error of omission justifiable?  Why have you not warned university officials to desist in this practice or lose Church academic accreditation?  Why compromise with those who aid and abet murderers?

  The article’s headline, your words again – “Natural Law Leads to Respect for Life.”  Nay!  Natural Law by its identity insists “. . . for if we do not follow Natural Law, it can but scream out to us, ‘You have lost your humanness and respect for life itself ’”  It doesn’t lead to a respect for Life, it postulates it.  That’s what you should have said. 

  As to the inappropriate ending to your first “said Mass” after your appointment to your cardinalship, Cardinal Dolan, you re a man of God, not a celebrity or a public official.  It was a mistake indeed to kowtow, to toady to your first center row of shady souled guests.  Never approach evil to shake hands with it as you have.   Collectively they are all supporters of abortion and gay rights.  You opened yourself to manipulation by them by proffering your hand to them. They should not even have been there and honored by you.  How about we Catholics practicing separation of church and state?  They (if they wanted to come on their own) should have been relegated to a pew at the rear of the church.  You have shown a tolerance of malevolent practices.  Mother Teresa is the exemplar to follow.  When Bill Clinton offered her his hand, she shunned him and walked away.

  As to performing abortions or dispensing contraceptives at any Catholic facility, medical or otherwise, this flies in the face of all our Church’s teachings. If you agree to this in any shape, manner, or form, doff your red hat to your adoring, fawning audience; don’t put it back on, and leave my Church.  The morally proper protocol is to adamantly refuse to help kill pre-born people (babies) or to prevent their creation.  Do not pay any fines; rather, continue God’s work, and let it, the big bad treacherous demonic monster (our morally failed and corrupt government) come for you and put you in jail.  This is your rightful protest.

  As to abortion, you are the titular head of the American Catholic Bishop’s conference.  Insist that each bishop order all of his pastors to assign parishioners to picket, demonstrate, and counsel outside abortion mills -- and tell him to lead the way.

  Babies’ lives must be saved, and so too the souls of the parents who opt for abortion, by stopping them from doing so.  If pastors do not cooperate, have them removed.

  Have a pro-life and pro-straight message given at each and every Mass throughout the realm of your cardinalship.


  Finally – a last word on your guests, and yourself – they are all, each, your common prototypical, morally bankrupt public officials who embrace immorality in order to stay in office.  They are anathema to our Church.  We are dealing with theological and intellectual morons.  You are our shepherd.  Do not become as they are.

  Your reply to the faithful is needed, and requested.  Let’s examine your backbone, Sir.  Just how are you going to fulfill your office?  I look for your letter answering this one within a three week span after your receipt of it.  Print this letter and your comment on it in  the Catholic New York.  Mail me a copy of your reply.


  Make the Church and all of your babies as I am.

  Yours in Baby Jesus’ name .

. . .  Scott Free . .man       Scott Freeman

Hi John,  As always, I enjoy your newsletter; you re a voice for our brethren who are held unjustly as prisoners.
  I soooo appreciate Ralph Lang; an initial reading makes the man sounds incredibly sane to me. It is the judicial system we allowed to move into a state of criminal insanity.
  It is also the police or enforcement agencies that have lost all connection with reality and morality. Imagine the insanity of arresting a man who is only bent on saving innocent human lives; now that is completely deranged behavior!!
  But further thinking on the matter suggests that seed of insanity is resident in Ralph, as, perhaps, in all of us. Too bad Ralph didn't keep his own counsel on the "struggle" in which he claims he was "out of sync with God" over.
Confessing his "struggle" might be construed as a coward’s way of saying, "I'm gonna place myself in a position where I cannot obey."
  Ralph is like a lot of Christians who say they want to cooperate in God's will, but then act in ways that preclude being available when God commands obedience.
  My mind is conflicted. Was the "accident" of injuring a motel room wall, rather than injuring a serial killer, really just the man struggling and finally saying, "I will not obey!"?

  Always good to hear from the prisoners who have truly laid their lives down to save the unborn. But I do have a conflict with Brother James.... Would he choose to attend a Moloch ceremony, or one to Chumash or Baal?
  Muslims worship a god that is a pretender, nothing more. Their god is not the LORD God of all Creation; he's an imposter, and as such, he is as ghastly and deadly as the cruelest of any pagan god. So why was it sooo important to be a part of their Ramadan celebration?
  I am not Roman Catholic, but it sounds like the prison chaplain took the command against false worship more seriously than Jimbo. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding Jim's conflict which led to his Catholic dis-fellowshipping ("excommunication").
  I'm not trying to "shoot the wounded," just wanting some clarity as to why Jim sees himself at odds with a man who has apparently tried to warn him against polytheism.

Warmly in Christ,  Cathy Ramey



  Americans who have become pessimistic about the direction our nation is taking were undoubtedly buoyed on August 1 of this year by “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.”  For those of you who spent that day in solitary confinement, or out of the country, an explanation is in order.

  Chick-fil-A’s President, Dan Cathy, told an online religious newspaper that he “supports the biblical definition of the family unit”, and that “supporters of gay marriage were arrogant.”  Gay marriage supporters immediately called for a nationwide boycott of Chick-fil-A, and liberal big city mayors such as Rahm Emanuel of Chicago announced that the fast food chain was not welcome in their jurisdictions.  Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (a national treasure, in my book!) joined forces to urge all Americans to celebrate “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” on August 1.

  When my Son, Adam, called me at noon on August 1 from Chick-fil-A to tell me that it was mobbed, I knew something big had happened.  “Dad,” he said, “You wouldn’t believe it!  The line of people waiting to get in wraps all around the building, and the drive-up line wraps around three times!  There’s a policeman directing traffic!”  Had Mr. and Mrs. America finally decided to fight back?  At 2 PM I hopped in my old clunker to see for myself.  It was just as reported.  I got in line.  The woman in line ahead of me told me she and her kids had driven 45 minutes to get there, just to make a statement.  She was tired of being called a “hater” just because she believed that a marriage was a union of one man and one woman. 

   Behind me an elderly woman was grumpy because she just came to get a chicken sandwich and had no idea what she’d run into.  She told us we were all Obama haters because we’re racists.

  Inside the building, pandemonium reigned.  I kiddingly asked the woman behind the counter, “How’s business?”  She looked at me as if I were crazy!  Apparently, one of the employees had brought in her children to work behind the counter to keep up with the demand.  I bought chicken sandwiches for the whole family, and said, “Keep the faith!” to the guy who held the door for me on the way out.  He grinned and said, “Amen, brother!”  A news van from Channel 69 TV News was parked in the lot. 

  What are we to make of all this?  I couldn’t help wondering whether this experience carried any significance for the upcoming presidential election.  Could it be that the “silent majority”—the wage earners and retirees of America--are tired of being silent, and of being told that their opinions are beyond the pale?  We’re taught that America is a land governed by laws, and not by men.  But, if that is true, then how can a tyrant like Rahm Emanuel unilaterally choose which businesses are welcome in their cities?  Isn’t that supposed to be governed by zoning ordinances and planning commissions?

  Personally, I believe it’s way past time for Americans to get good and angry.  Our freedoms are being eliminated before our eyes, and our Constitution trampled underfoot.  If we’re not angry now, I’m sure that we’ll never be!   Respectfully Submitted,

          Ed Bender,    Berks County Patriots
        Sound Familiar?
  First they came for the unborn, but I was already born, and so I went shopping (Roe v Wade; Doe v Bolton; http://old.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/roevwade/CaseSummariesforwebsite4-18.pdf). 

  Then they came for the "vegetables," but I was not a "vegetable," and so I went on summer vacation (Cruzan v Director Missouri Dept. of Health; http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1503/).

  Then they came for the chronically disabled, but I was not disabled, so I planted a garden (Busalacchi v Missouri Rehab Center; http://www.ppl.org/index.php/publications/end-of-life-euthanasia-infanticide/228-who-was-nancy-cruzan-who-is-christine-busalacchi-where-is-the-church-how-does-christianity-regard-the-vulnerable).

  Then they came for the mentally ill, but I was not mentally ill, so I held a family reunion (Compassion in Dying v State of Washington; http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/update001/)

  Then they came for activists, but that wasn't my ministry, so I watched re-runs of Law & Order and meditated on justice (National Organization for Women v. Scheidler; http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_780/).

  Then they came after "Christian" employers--mostly Catholic institutions raising a fuss, but I worked for the state, so I caught up on some reading (Catholic Church v. HHS Contraceptive Mandate; http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/06/15/states-religious-institutions-sue-hhs-over-contraceptive-mandate)

  Then they came for pastors, but I realized these were not "real" preachers with "real" churches, so I went out and mowed my lawn (City of Phoenix v Salmon; see below).

  Then they came for me because I was caught publicly singing Christmas Carols, and so here I am in jail, wondering if anyone will come to rescue me..... (Fat chance....)      Cathy Ramey

  Dear John, What is the story behind Roe v. Wade's "companion" case known as Doe v. Bolton? The few who read it are puzzled by it.
  To clear up the mystery, the difference is that Roe sets forth the scheme of the Court's new pregnancy abatement program, whereas Doe musters a brigade of physicians to perform the task of abatement.
  To accomplish the massive task of pregnancy abatement during our time of sexual revolution, the Court required a brigade of physicians to do abortions full-time. But the Court realized that skilled physicians would seldom abandon real careers to do abortions, and that forcing them to do abortions would create too much opposition. So the Court turned to incompetent physicians instead.
  Under normal circumstances, incompetent physicians will eventually lose their licenses because they no longer measure up to the scrutiny of medical regulations. On the other hand, if perchance you suspend medical regulations, then they can stay in practice. This is why the Court handed down Doe v. Bolton as Roe's companion case. In Doe, the Court quietly suspended medical regulations so incompetent physicians would have a safe haven to stay in practice in return for doing abortions.
  Few are also aware that Roe was ultimately founded on the government's authority to control the public involuntarily, based on cases such as Jacobson v. Massachusetts (forced vaccination) and Buck v. Bell (forced sterilization). In other words, rather than giving women an outright "choice" per se, the Court cautiously reserved forced abortion as a backup plan, in case voluntary abortion proved insufficient to satisfy the Court's objectives of pregnancy abatement. In other words, a sharp pair of pruning shears has always been hiding behind the big white sign that says "Choice" all along.
  I know this makes my contribution a bit long, but I hope you will also be able to include the following excerpt from Scotty's application for a stay of lethal execution, which explains these matters in more detail. Scotty is asking the Court to stop killing preborn children. Here it is:


  "If there is doubt whether due process has been followed in the procedures, the stay is granted, because death is irrevocable." Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 414 U.S. 1319. For the reasons stated above, there is reason to doubt that sound constitutional procedures were followed in authorizing the ongoing execution of preborn children. To underscore the harm that will result from the denial of the stay, more children are executed on an average day under this Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade than the total number of adults who have been executed since 1976 when the Court resumed adult executions.
The privacy right upheld in Roe v. Wade has never been substantial enough to obviate the possibility of involuntary abortion, including in arbitrary connection with poverty and crime. 410 U.S. 153-154, 159, founding the decision ultimately on the abatement authority of Jacobson and Buck with abandonment Skinner. See also Casey, 505 U.S. 857, preserving reliance on Jacobson, and 505 U.S. 915-916, citing Stanley and Whalen in support of overriding privacy if necessary to stop the spread of obscene pregnancies when drugs are involved.
  As Justice Marshall explains in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 100-101 (1973), joined notably by Skinner author Justice Douglas:
"Recently, in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152-154 (1973), the importance of procreation has, indeed, been explained on the basis of its intimate relationship with the constitutional right of privacy which we have recognized. Yet the limited stature thereby accorded any "right" to procreate is evident from the fact that at the same time the Court reaffirmed its initial decision in Buck v. Bell. See Roe v. Wade, supra, at 154."
  By "initial decision" is meant that the Court decided in Roe that Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), should no longer serve to protect women from involuntary procedures to control reproduction in arbitrary connection with poverty and crime, at least when it comes to abortion. In fact, the Court was so obsessed with ensuring pregnancy abatement that in Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), to muster a brigade of physicians for the task, it established a safe haven by suspending medical regulations so incompetent physicians could stay in practice by doing abortions. As Justice Douglas explains in Doe, 410 U.S. 179, 220-221: "In short, I agree with the Court that endangering the life of the woman or seriously and permanently injuring her health are standards too narrow for the right of privacy that is at stake."
  By this sort of "privacy" the Court means not an individual's right to privacy per se, but rather the privacy of our nation, collectively as a whole, to mask for its underlying social and economic ills, by disposing of the evidence using child homicide in its most clandestine form of abortion. To achieve this privacy the Court has accepted "endangering the life of the woman or seriously and permanently injuring her health" by suspending medical regulations to create a safe haven so incompetent physicians can remain in practice by doing abortions. [Sound familiar, John?]
  There is also the problem that abortions are used to obstruct justice in cases of sexual abuse of minors. Even physicians doing abortions have sexually abused the minors seeking abortions. Yet this Court remains hesitant to step in, for fear that added involvement might hinder the abatement effort with regard to minor's pregnancies. See Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976); Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979). This goes to show that Justice Douglas left out "abusing her" when outlining the many shameful risks the Court has been willing to accept in providing a safe haven for physicians doing abortions.
  Hence, in addition to interrupting the harm of child homicide, a stay will also interrupt: forced abortion; the practice of allowing physicians of dubious qualification to hide behind a suspension of medical regulations; the masking of social and economic ills; and, the obstruction of justice. It is time for our nation to face its ills and to protect its children.
  Indeed, nothing can be more substantial than the right to life. As conceded in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 156-157, "If this suggestion of personhood is established ... the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment." For this reason, the harm of not granting the stay plainly outweighs any reservations to the contrary.

P.S. To clear up Justice Steven's position in Casey, the "crack" baby epidemic of the hip hop/dirty dancing craze prompted the Court to hear the case in the first place, because states, under both conservative and liberal leadership, were creating quite the clamor pressuring women with crack babies to abort. And whereas the pregnancies of the flapper, hippie, and disco crazes were considered awkward if not scandalous, by community standards those of the hip hop/dirty dancing craze were considered obscene. So Stevens invoked Stanley v. Georgia, which said that even though the right to privacy permits the possession of obscenity, the state has the right to intervene when the obscenity is being spread about the community. Otherwise, the state will be faced with an epidemic of obscenity.  

  Then, to answer how this fits in with the privacy between a woman and her physician, Stevens invoked Whalen v. Roe, to explain that the Court has found an exception in the past when drugs are involved. In Whalen, the issue was that of the state tracking people when their doctor prescribes narcotic drugs. So Stevens suggested that an exception to privacy would also apply to drug-related pregnancies.                   Sincerely, Cal


    Meet Angel Dillard:

  An anti-abortion activist accused of threatening a Wichita doctor who was training to offer abortions will have to face a jury after failing to show the issue is so incendiary that jurors cannot impartially decide her case, a federal judge ruled.

  U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten granted the government's belated request for a jury trial against Angel Dillard. The Valley Center woman had wanted a judge, rather than a jury, to decide her case, arguing it will be difficult for jurors to set aside strong feelings about her association with Dr. George Tiller's murderer.

  The judge said that the parties have ample time to prepare for the Feb. 5 trial.

  "No strong or compelling reason exists to justify removing from the hands of the jury the resolution of the facts of this case," Marten wrote in his decision.

  The Justice Department has sued Dillard under a federal law aimed at protecting access to reproductive services. Jurors will have to decide whether the letter Dillard sent to Dr. Mila Means last year constitutes a "true threat" intended to intimidate the doctor from providing abortion services. 

  In her letter, Dillard wrote that thousands of people from across the United States are already looking into the doctor's background. 

  "They will know your habits and routines. They know where you shop, who your friends are, what you drive, where you live," the letter said. "You will be checking under your car every day — because maybe today is the day someone places an explosive under it." 

  Abortions have not been openly performed in Wichita since Tiller, one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers, was fatally shot in May 2009 by anti-abortion activist Scott Roeder as the physician served as an usher at his Wichita church.

  "There is probably ... no issue more emotionally charged and divisive than the abortion issue," the defense argued its filing. "This type of case is especially ill-suited for a jury, particularly in the environment which plaintiff alleges is a large part of this case — the stress, turmoil, chaos and public conflict that exists in Wichita over this issue."

  Means has testified her fears were heightened after reading a news story by The Associated Press that quoted Dillard in a July 2009 interview, saying she had developed a friendship with Roeder while he was awaiting trial.

  "With one move, (Roeder) was able ... to accomplish what we had not been able to do," Dillard told AP at the time. "So he followed his convictions and I admire that."

  In his ruling Tuesday, Marten refused Dillard's request to dismiss her case because Means is not presently providing abortion services. The judge also rejected a move by Dillard to countersue the government for allegedly violating her First Amendment rights.

  The lawsuit — filed by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act — seeks a court order that keeps Dillard from contacting Means or coming within 250 feet of Means, her home, car or business. It also seeks damages of $5,000 to Means and a civil penalty of $15,000.

  Dillard had contended that the government had interfered with her access to a religious institution because the proposed barrier zone might prevent her from attending a church near the clinic.

Marten said that any claim under the First Amendment would be premature since the court can tailor any resulting remedy to preserve Dillard's rights.

  Rev. Michael Bray comments: 

  I had the pleasure of meeting Angel Dillard at the Roeder trial and a few months later when I visited Roeder in jail. She is a woman of excellent character endowed with musical and vocal skills. She simply wrote a note to an abortionist who was replacing Tiller pointing out what that death might well be awaiting him. It was clearly not a threat as she made no effort to hide her identity and she was unaware of the obscene and unconstitutional FACE law (1994) which not only violates our basic freedom of speech but punishes those who stumble into the trap of speaking too earnestly against the child slaughter by abortion.

  A killers’ helper posts this on the abortion.ws blog: 

   Here’s a great article that provides a closer look at the birth control battles, all fought with a whooping dose of shame:  http://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/birth-control-rights?page=3#ixzz236ZkGFos 

  I read the article and commented: 

    “In other words, that little pill could, in the world of Personhood, be deemed a lethal weapon, an instrument of homicide.” 

  Leave it to the killers’ helpers in a cheap (in every way) bonkadonk mag to zero in on the real horror — “birth control.” Real birth control requires self control. The stuff these folks peddle promotes indulgence and murder.

  Prolifers must realize that the holocaust we are enduring began with the legal killing of the youngest people, the less than week-olds. We really didn’t get involved till they began legally killing the two and three month olds. 

  Here’s the present situation: we will either start killing the one and two year olds, or we will start protecting the one and two day olds.

No comments: