![[IMAGE]](corp7.bmp)
|
Use this to Find an Article of Interest |
| March Newsletter, 2000 | Newsletter Index | CoR Home | Contact Us | Feedback |
|
|
Use this to Find an Article of Interest |
| March Newsletter, 2000 | Newsletter Index | CoR Home | Contact Us | Feedback |
By Katherine Sabelko
Trent Lott, Senate Majority Leader, so-called pro-life Republican was interviewed on Meet the Press, March 26, an NBC Sunday television program. This exchange came at the close of the interview:
Tim Russert asked Senator Lott "Who is going to win the Oscars?"Sen. Lott responded, "Well, I saw the Cider House Rules, I enjoyed that tremendously."
Tim Russert asked, Best picture?"
Sen. Lott said again, "It was great, a great movie."
No pro-lifer could have knowingly gone to this movie, no less call this movie "great!" It is clearly a movie supporting abortion, [CoR February Newsletter] out-of-wedlock sex, and excuses suicidal behavior. Just where does Sen. Lott stand on moral issues?
Were pro-lifers mistaken with they picketed the Oscars because of this horrible story about an abortionist? No, they were right on the mark!
The screen writer for the movie and also the orginal writer of the novel, Cider House Rules, was John Irving. When he accepted his Oscar for this tragic work, he thanked Planned Parenthood for their assistance and help! Sen. Lott, where are you!
We must let this senator know that we oppose this type of anti-life propaganda to be classified as anything except trash and anti-life. If he can classify a movie that as the review states, "references to incest, violent and suicidal behavior, drug abuse, a fleeting sexual encounter and brief nudity", the U.S. Catholic Conference classification is O -- morally offensive, where is Sen. Lott and what good Christian would want him to speak on behalf of the pro-life community?
Please e-mail or write Sen. Lott your objections to his pro-death opinions and encourage your friends to contact him with their objections.
A copy of your correspondence could also be sent to your Senators and Representatives as a "wake-up call."
Email: senatorlott@lott.senate.gov
In Washington, write to:
SR-487, Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-6253, FAX (202) 224-2262
In Mississippi:
200 E. Washington St. Suite 145, Greenwood , MS 38930, (662) 453-5681, FAX (662) 453-8974
By Katherine Sabelko
A shadowed cannibalization has entered our world of wonder drugs and miracle cures. We knew that aborted baby tissue is being used to find a possible cure for Parkenson's Disease, although all testing that has been done showed that approach has failed. We had published information years ago that the vaccine used for Rubella has its roots in the use of aborted baby tissue. We have now have a list of vaccines that the drug companies list that are connected with the use of aborted baby tissue.
This list of ingredients of vaccines that come from aborted babies is posted on The Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Internet site.
This is a serious issue, especially for parents of young children.
Havrix
Hepatitis A by Smith Kline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, 1-800-633-8900, ext. 5231 It is produced using formalin, aluminum hydroxide, phenoxyethanol (antifreeze), polysorbate 20, residual MRC5 proteins (from medium) medium: human diploid cells (originating from human aborted fetal tissue.)
Biavax
Rubella and Mumps Virus Vaccine Live by the Merck & Co, Inc. The contact phone number: 1-800-672-6372. It is produced using neomycin, sorbitol, hydrolized gelatin medium: human diploid cells (originating from human aborted fetal tissue.)
MMR
Measles Mumps Rubella Live Virus Vaccine by the Merck & Co., Inc.
1-800-672-6372. It is produced using sorbitol, neomycin, hydrolyzed gelatin mediums: M&M - chick embryo
Rubella - human diploid cells (originating from human aborted fetal tissue)
M-R-Vax
Measles and Rubella Virus Vaccine Live by the Merck & Co., Inc.
1-800-672-6372. It is produced using neomycin, sorbitol, hydrolyzed gelatin mediums: M - chick embryo R - human diploid cells (originating from human aborted fetal tissue.)
Meruvax II
Rubella Virus Vaccine Live by the Merck & Co., Inc. 1-800-672-6372
It is produced using neomycin, sorbitol, hydrolyzed gelatin medium: human diploid cells (originating from human aborted fetal tissue.)
Mumpsvax
Mumps Virus Vaccine Live by Merck & Co., Inc. 1-800-672-6372. It is produced using neomycin, sorbitol, hydrolyzed gelatin medium: human diploid cells (originating from human aborted fetal tissue.)
Imovax
Rabies Vaccine Adsorbed by Connaught Laboratories 1-800-822-2463. It is produced using human albumin, neomycin sulfate, phenol red indicator medium: human diploid cells (originating from human aborted fetal tissue.)
Varivax
Varicella Virus Vaccine Live
Merck & Co., Inc. 1-800-672-6372 produced using sucrose, phosphate, glutamate, processed gelatin medium: human diploid cells (originating from human aborted fetal tissue.)
Children of the Rosary received this question after we sent out a pro-life alert concerning the vaccines listed: Are there options for these companies to the use of human diploid cells (originating from human aborted fetal tissue) that would be as or more effective????
The position of Children of the Rosary is that we have no medical background to aid you in this question, BUT, I respectfully consider the question irrelevant for this reason: Even if the vaccines that have been developed could save thousands of lives and/or improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, it is still a totally immoral act. You can not utilize the aborted/killed/murdered child for the good of the whole society.
If the question were "Could we kill one person and use the tissue that could save 100,000 people from a fatal disease, would it be ethical?" No. Each life is unique, and highly valued by God. "Thou shalt not kill."
Another proposition will also underline the immorality of using aborted babies for medical "break-throughs." If so-called wonder vaccines are successful, what is to stop researchers from seeking the next step - seeking the organs of those people who carry rare healing attributes for the masses.
Many researchers have already shown no moral boundaries by buying baby body parts and actually requiring specific organs, limbs, or entire baby bodies for huge amounts of money. There is no end to this.
By Mike Richmond
Gloria Steinem asserted that Adolf Hitler was anti-abortion. One target of the Nazi forced sterilization was deaf Germans.
For a detailed account of the Nazi sterilization and murder campaign against deaf Germans, read Crying Hands (Horst Biesold, 1999). Biesold is a retired professor and teacher of deaf students who now lives in Bremen, Germany. Chapter 4 of his book is devoted to forced abortions against the deaf. Only three paragraphs from this chapter are needed to demolish the Steinem delusion that Hitler and the Nazis were anti-abortion:
"The Fascist rulers and their accomplices from medicine, jurisprudence, and education intended the Law for the Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases [i.e. the forced sterilization law] to block the creation of "impaired" life, in keeping with their view of race ideology.They took the first step toward the elimination of life, however, with the passage of the Law to Amend the Law for the Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases. This expansion of the original act gave physicians the legal means to terminate pregnancies by force. Race hygienists and advocates of sterilization argued for it after a number of women defied public policy and became pregnant.
As one scholar has states, "The amendment to the law was .... a consequence not only of an immanent and expansive race-hygienic 'logic' but also of the opposition of 'inferior' women."1
Years later the record shows, in the cold language of medical bureaucrats, the double process of forced sterilization and forced termination of pregnancy. It reads as follows:
Physician's CertificateOn the order of the Hereditary Health Court of Munich, file No. 16 XIII 12/36, the sterilization of Fraulein Franziska Schwarz, born on November 27, 1918, was completed on March 21, 1941, by means of laparotomy, wedge-shaped excision of both tubes, and extirpation of the tubes, since the sterilization operation of May 7, 1936, had been unsuccessful. In August of 1938 Fraulein Schwarz's pregnancy was terminated [i.e. induced aborted] in the fourth month.
This is confirmed by an examination of the file.
Dr. Hollenweger-Mayr, "Assistant Doctor" Gynecology Clinic and Midwifery College of the University of Munich, Munich, February 27, 1952.2
Gloria, if Hitler was anti-abortion, why did his laws both allow and mandate abortion and why did Nazi officials carry out forced abortion on deaf Germans, among others?
Gloria Steinem says Hitler was anti-abortion. Al Gore says he invented the Internet, and Hillary (born in 1947) says she was named after Sir Edmond Hillary, the first man to climb Mount Everest. (In 1947, though, Edmond Hillary was still only an unknown beekeeper.)
The liberal license to lie has lapsed. Hitler was anti-abortion like Boy Clinton is anti-promiscuity.
-----------------------
1. Crying Hands, page 84
2. Crying Hands, page 90
By Len Mensil
Center For Arizona Policy
Sen. John McCain has made the impact of the "Religious Right" a major talking point in recent days. While CAP cannot endorse or oppose candidates for public office, we do think it is important to defend the right of Christians to participate in the public policy process. I was quoted in Wednesday's Tribune on this subject.
Michael Kelly of the Washington Post wrote "the hour of the Christian Right is well past ... and rank and file Christian activists have grown profoundly demoralized by their failure to achieve their goals through the political process, and have turned away from it."
I pray this is not so. Certainly in Arizona, there is no cause for demoralization as we look back at 16 new pro-family and pro-life laws in the past four years as the direct result of our involvement in public policy. We cannot be demoralized so long as we remember that:
We have a duty to be salt and light in our culture. The result of any policy effort is in God's hands. Only if we mistakenly put our hope in politics and politicians can we become discouraged and demoralized.
Bryan Howard of Planned Parenthood has issued an e-mail alert to his followers that demonstrates how truly pro-abortion, rather than pro-choice, his organization is. Every year they pretend to be reasonable, but now they are digging in their heels and opposing even a weakened version of the parental consent bill, SB-1238. Howard wrote: "There may have been an opportunity very early in the session to discuss a rational approach to ensuring that minors get good counsel, and that parents' roles in health care decisions be respected. That opportunity was missed when anti-choice hard-liners fought tooth and nail to maintain aspects of the bill which create hurdles to access to abortion... Planned Parenthood believes the choice between a bad or a worse piece of legislation misses the point: SB-1238 needs to be defeated regardless of how it is amended." To date, Planned Parenthood's expensive media campaign is resulting in about 80 pieces of mail against SB-1238, compared to a handful of calls in support.
Please check our web site at www.cenazpol.org and click on Find your Legislator.
Planned Parenthood is going all out to stop pro-abortion legislators from voting for even this issue, which is supported by four out of five Arizonans.
********
Ed. Note: On March 30, the bill, SB-1238 was voted down.
VirtueMedia would like to share some good news that blossomed as a result of COR's monthly generosity to VirtueMedia!
We were blessed with an incredible deal for television commercials. For $3,300 we will run the You Have Options spot commercials 54 times, and the Hope and Healing spot 24 times from March 27 through April 16 on KTVK-TV 3. Television viewing is particularly heavy this time of year.The spots will air on Monday through Wednesday and on Saturday and Sunday . We could not have done this without the help of COR, since you are by far the major contributor to this lifesaving effort!
Please pray for our Lord to shower His Love and Mercy on the viewers during this commercial blitz!
Yours in Christ,
Tom Peterson
VirtueMedia
By David C. Reardon, Ph.D.
Women who have an abortion are five times more likely to report subsequent substance abuse compared to women who carry to term, according to a study published in the latest issue of the prestigious American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse.
The study was authorized by Elliot Institute Director Dr. David Reardon and Dr. Philip Ney, a British specializes in post-abortion counseling. According to the authors, while the connection between abortion and substance abuse has never been widely publicized, this is at least the 16th published study connecting a history of abortion to subsequent drug or alcohol abuse.
This latest study was drawn from a national reproductive history survey of a random sample of 700 women, from 2-4 to 44 years of age. "Even if we assume the lowest statistical range for the relative risk, our results would indicate that each year, in the United States alone, there are at least 150,000 new cases of abortion-related substance abuse," Reardon said. "Given the range of relative risks identified, the the actual number could be as high as 500,000 cases per year."
Ney believes these findings are especially disturbing since substance abuse is a leading cause of neonatal death and malformation in subsequent planned pregnancies. "I have found that women with unresolved grief or trauma related to a prior abortion are more likely to feel anxiety, fear, and depression during subsequent pregnancies," Ney said. "If they are unable to legally obtain mood-altering drugs with a prescription, many of these women resort to alcohol or illegal drugs as a means of suppressing unwanted feelings about their past abortions."
Ney's clinical experience treating women is confirmed by several previously published studies that have documented much highr rates of drug and alcohol abuse among pregnant women who have had an abortion.
Substance abuse appears to be just one of several self-destructive tendencies related to abortion, said Reardon. A recent major study of death certificates and government medical records in Finland has shown that the risk of aeath from suicide is six times higher for women who have had an abortion compared to women who gave birth. The researchers also found that the risk of dying from accidents and homicide was four and twelve times higher, respectively, in the year following an abortion.
According to Reardon, the increase in accidental or homicide-related deaths among post-abortive women is most likely due to risk-taking behavior that is an expression of self-destructive or suicidal tendencies. It is still unclear whether abortion causes self-destructive behavior or whether it simply aggravates previously existing self-destructive tendencies.
"Clearly, women with a propensity to risk-taking may be more likely to become pregnant and perhaps more likely to choose abortion," Reardon said.
"In such cases, while abortion may not be the primary cause of their problems, it may contribute to their psycho-logical deterioration. On the other hand, it is also clear that some women who were not previously self-destructive have become so as a direct result of their traumatic abortion experiences. At this time, however, we have no way of knowing how many women fall into each of these two categories."
While many proponents of abortion dispute a causal link between abortion and substance abuse, Ney insists that his own experience in successfully treating abortion trauma proves that this connection is far more than a statistical fluke.
"I have treated women with a long history of self-destructive behavior who have only made progress in overcoming these tendencies after they had completed counseling for abortion trauma," says Ney. "Many other therapists have had the same experience. Consistently good results can only come from the right diagnosis and the right treatment."
David C. Reardon, Ph.D., Elliot Institute, (217)525-8202
Philip G. Ney, M.D., IIPLCARR (250) 642-1848
On-Line link to Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse article by Reardon and Ney:
http:Hwww.dekker.com/e/p.pl/0095-2990/026/001/006/abs
For more information on this study and a list of citations and links to other studies mentioned in this news release, go to http://www.afterabortion.org/News/subabuse.htm
Thank you for reprinting the article on classroom sex education and including it in your December Newsletter.
More than 20 years ago, when our children were in elementary school, my husband and I did our best to alert other parents and pastors to the evils of classroom sex education. We were baffled by the disregard for the statements of opposition to sex education put forth by the magisterium since the reign of Pope Pius XI.
We, along with many other parents (and the official teaching of the Catholic Church), have always believed that sex education does not belong in the schools to begin with.
Now the world is reaping the harvest of the errors and contradictions passed off on unsuspecting, trusting Catholics for so many years.
Thank you, Children of the Rosary, for your uncompromising stand on this and all other pro-life issues. You are doing a great service to the Catholic community.
Doris Kobrzycki
Phoenix, Arizona
I was shocked to see that the Diocese of Phoenix is sponsoring an event at YWCA. For years we have known that YWCA not only pro-abortion but makes an efforts to swing the yuth into the false way of thinking.
Titled Social Ministry in Acton, An Umbrella for Building Just and Caring Communities, this entire program is a sham of what the Catholic Church should stand for. But instead of truth, love and Faith, the program presents topics such as Feminist Theological Prespectives, and Justice Through Liturgy.
The biggest insult is that the pro-life coordinator for the Catholic Diocese of Phoenix, Judy Gifford, will be one of the speakers! How can anyone who professes to be pro-life take part in a event at a well-known pro-abortion organization that has been on pro-life boycott lists for years!
I am so angry and I feel justly so that this Diocese has let us down again! I hope everyone gives Bishop O'Brien and Ms. Gifford a call to protest this event!
Alice McGuire
Glendale, Arizona
Thank you so much for publishing the boycott list from Human Life International. I am always amazed at how many corporations are involved in supporting abortion and yet, as I look at this country, I can see why we are in the mess that we are!
If the list might see "too much" to handle, I have always advised my friends to mark the companies they deal with, boycott those and write them letters!
Miranda Combs
Dallas, TX
By Sylvia Jiménez
Coordinator,Latinos for Life and Family
A catalog of Spanish materials is now available in a bilingual (Spanish / English) format. This catalog is up on the website: http://www.vidahumana.org. To obtain a printed copy along with free samples of our materials, please contact Latinos for Life and Family office, Human Life International's outreach to US Hispanics 45 SW 71 Ave., Miami, FL 33144 (305) 260-0525; Fax. (305) 260-0595
The Hispanic population is growing so quickly in the U.S. that the U.S. Census Bureau projects that by 2005, it will surpass that of African Americans to become the nation's largest minority group. We in the pro-life movement need to do what we can to reach out to Hispanics, who are traditionally pro-life. "Latinos for Life and Family" was established for that very purpose, to equip and help pro-lifers share the pro-life message with Hispanics.
As a worker in the pro-life ministry, I'm sure you are well aware of how the abortion industry targets minorities. Did you know that there is a well organized pro-abortionist network established exclusively to promote the pro-death mindset among Hispanic women? It's called the "National Latina Initiative for Reproductive Health": http://www.nlirh.org. And other pro-abortion organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, are likewise luring Hispanics by offering information in Spanish and working with Hispanic leaders. As you can see, it is critical that we reach out to Hispanics with the pro-life message.
What does "Latinos for Life and Family" offer? Through "Vida Humana International (VHI), which is the Hispanic Division of Human Life International (HLI), we offer vast and varied educational resources: pamphlets, books, videos; Spanish TV and radio programs; training programs for various levels ranging from an introduction to pro-life issues to specialized training for pro-life leaders.
Our expansive website at: http://www.vidahumana.org offers vast amounts of information on over 22 topics related to life, love and family (abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, domestic violence, etc.). We also offer an English language section, current news, a section for journalists and a "Hot Topics" section. This information is completely free of charge and can even be reproduced or reprinted (for newsletters, etc.) for free distribution, provided that the source and contact information is cited. We are also in the process of preparing an English language section.
Abortion advocates were upset when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a letter to the U.S. patent holder of the abortion drug, RU-486, outlining some unresolved questions it had with the drug. The FDA had been expected to give RU-486 its final approval early this year, but the letter -- which the FDA has refused to elaborate on -- cast some doubt on those predictions. [Lutherans For Life]
A national pro-life association for Catholic priests today warned politicians that being pro-abortion in their policy stances is not an option for Catholics. Priests for Life said the US bishops had been clear on the issue in a November 1998 statement. "As Americans, as Catholics and as pastors of our people, we write therefore today to call our fellow citizens back to our country's founding principles, and most especially to renew our national respect for the rights of those who are unborn, weak, disabled, and terminally ill," the bishops wrote.
The group said those who hold or seek elected office, proclaiming to be Catholic while holding "pro-choice" views, are risking confusion and scandal for lay Catholics who live the Church's teachings. "No law says you have to be Catholic. But if you publicly declare that you are, don't be surprised if someone criticizes inconsistencies between your public positions and the teachings of the Church," the group warned. Priests for Life also said its members will refuse to be intimidated by those who tell them that they should not "meddle in politics" when they denounce the evil of abortion or otherwise proclaim the Gospel. "Politics is not an arena which can absolve itself of responsibility to moral laws; nor can the Church absolve herself of the responsibility to teach those laws..." [CINLIFE V1, #197]
Ed. Note:Perhaps this statement should be sent to every Catholic legislator who voted down the parental consent bill!
***********
"Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?" - Job 31:15
**********
Three days a week, The Associated Press picks an issue and asks all the presidential candidates a question about it. They were asked this question: Should abortion laws be changed and, if so, what is the most pressing change that should be made?
Democrat Party:
Bill Bradley: "I believe that the decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is a private one between a woman and her doctor. We must protect that privacy and keep abortion safe and legal. My support for a woman's right to choose - regardless of economic circumstance - is clear, resolute and unwavering, and it has never changed during all my years in public life. The only change I would support is eliminating restrictions on the use of family planning assistance to developing countries."
Al Gore: "A woman's right to choose is fundamental. That decision should be made by the woman, in consultation with those she trusts. Abortion must remain legal and safe - and increasingly rare. I support the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify the Roe vs. Wade decision into federal law so that states could not limit or chip away rights provided by the decision."
Reform Party - Pat Buchanan: No response.
Republican Party
Gary Bauer: "We need to define unborn babies as persons who are eligible for the protections of the 14th Amendment and enact legislation to protect them as such."
George W. Bush: "I support the goal of a Human Life Amendment with exceptions for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. Recognizing there is currently insufficient support for that amendment in Congress and the states, I will provide leadership to take positive, practical steps to reduce the number of abortions: ending partial-birth abortion, helping women in crisis through maternity group homes, encouraging adoption, promoting abstinence education, and passing laws requiring parental notification and waiting periods."
Steve Forbes:"Absolutely. Abortion is a moral wrong and a national tragedy. The most pressing change that needs to be made is to elect a pro-life president with a plan of action to put abortion on the road to extinction. I'm pro-life and committed to working to move the life issue forward. I will choose a pro-life running mate, appoint only pro-life judges and Supreme Court justices, and vigorously defend the pro-life plank in the Republican platform. On my first day in office, I will sign a ban on partial-birth abortion. From there the Forbes administration will move legislatively to pass a Human Life Amendment."
Alan Keyes:"We should overturn Roe vs. Wade and pass a Human Life Amendment to the constitution protecting the constitutional rights of our posterity."
John McCain:"Yes. Roe vs. Wade should be overturned and abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is in danger. As a pro-life Republican, I believe that until such time as the court reverses its decision in Roe vs. Wade or public support can win the day for a constitutional amendment we have an obligation to reduce the number of abortions performed as much as possible; to foster public opinion and individual responsibility that rejects abortion as a birth control alternative; to promote abstinence among youth; to change cultural attitudes about abortion; to facilitate alternatives to abortion including adoption; and to address the obstacles facing women so that they will choose life for their unborn child rather than selecting an abortion. The most pressing change must be ending partial-birth abortions."
By Lisa Marie Contini
I address the following to all who profess to embrace the pro-choice philosophy. It is not my intention to attempt to sway you with my pro-life convictions or with scientific facts about preborn life. You already know those arguments, and it is unlikely that hearing them once more would alter your position.
I must admit that for a long time I was convinced that "choice" was just an obscure euphemism to disguise the ugly nature of abortion. After all, abortion is a painful, bloody, hideous procedure. No woman really wants an abortion the way she wants a new dress or a new hairstyle. Women sitting in abortion clinics anticipating their turn are not happily awaiting the big moment. Rather, most of the women that freely choose abortion do so because none of the remaining options offer a realistic, tenable solution to their dilemma, or at least so they believe. If they knew of something feasible and more attractive than abortion, desperate women would probably choose that instead, and avoid the whole bloody, painful abortion ordeal.
In contrast, the overall "choice" concept is much prettier than abortion. Choice is about a woman's rights over her own body. It is about freedom to make a decision with life-long ramifications. Certainly we perceive fights and freedom to be good things. So, for die longest time, I thought that choice was marketed simply because abortion, with all its blood and guts, is so difficult to sell. I thought you were truly pro-abortion and that you were willing to use any word, deception notwithstanding, to get an abortion.
But I stand corrected. Listening to your arguments and reading your writings, I know now that choice is about personal autonomy. Choice means a woman's fundamental right to make a free-will autonomous choice about her body - to choose or not to choose to allow her body to carry a baby for nine months. Choice does not necessarily mean that babies are bad or that abortion is good - rather it means that a mother's rights supercede her baby's.
Since choice is about biological reproductive autonomy, it implies that a woman's right to choose life for her baby is just as fundamental as her right to choose abortion. The choice-argument is about a right; it is not about abortion per se. The point is, the choice is hers. She should not be forced to choose either way. The rights offered by choice make a woman just as free to choose life for her baby as she is to choose death. The important thing is that she be afforded the privilege to make a free-will decision, and that she be free to make that decision anytime during a pregnancy.
Now that I thoroughly understand your position, I am puzzled that you don't defend it. Why aren't you actively making sure that women are allowed to make that free-will decision and that they are always provided with the means to do so? Why don't you act to debunk the myths that sway women away from what they really want in their hearts?
You say that you're already doing these things? That you've been doing them all along? Thousands of women who would rather have their babies are pressured by their boyfriends and husbands into having abortions they don't want. I've been to abortion clinics and I've seen dozens of teary-eyed women pleading with these men all the way to the door of the clinic. You've never been there defending the fundamental rights of all these women who don't really want abortions. If you truly believe in choice, why have you permitted thousands of women to be pressured into something they haven't chosen? Because of your omission to defend a woman's free-will choice at her most desperate moment, it appears to me that you actually defend and promote a man's right to choose irresponsible and coercive behavior, selfishness and convenience over a woman's right to anything! His right to choose apparently supercede hers. What are you going to do about this horrible injustice? Why haven't you done something about it already?
And what about the young girls who don't want abortion but whose parents choose for them? Why aren't you standing up for their right to choose? Why aren't you at the abortion clinics with us, beckoning to these mothers and fathers who heartlessly force abortion and all its aftermath upon their young daughters? Why don't you do something about it?
Counselors at abortion facilities are trained to sell abortion to prospective clients despite whatever options truly exist and despite what these expectant mothers truly want. After all, abortion is a business that cannot thrive if women choose life. These counselors give women the absolutely false impression that abortion is practically risk-free and without regrets. Thus, today's "informed consent" is dreadfully lacking in realistic information. If you truly embrace the choice-concept, and not abortion per se, why haven't you done anything to stop the lies? Obviously, a woman cannot make a sound free-choice if the information behind her choice is untrue.
If you really believe in choice as you profess, please explain to me why you don't stand up for it? All you've really defended is abortion - not choice. You have verbally embraced a conviction, choice, but you only defend the choice of abortion and not the choice of bringing a live baby into the world.
Unless I see you truly defending a woman's right to choose, whether that choice is life or death, I must once again maintain that all the choice-talk is nothing more than deceptive rhetoric to support abortion. It doesn't appear to matter to you how many woman are physically or emotionally hurt, how many are pressured and coerced, or how many are lied to about the dangers of abortion or about the tiny life housed in their wombs. All that seems to matter to you is abortion.
Copyright 1996 Lisa M. Contini.
Ed. Note: To receive a list of other articles and pamphlets by Ms. Contini, please contact Aletheia Press. P.O. Box 577, Massena, N.Y. 13662, (315) 769-1090 or e-mail her at pinuccio-aletheiapress@northnet.org.
Partial-Birth Abortion Case Update
Washington DC -- More than 100 groups and individuals - ranging from physicians and clergy to pro-life advocates and state officials - have joined to file legal briefs supporting Nebraska's fight in the U.S.. Supreme Court to ban partial-birth abortions.
Nebraska filed its written brief earlier in the week, laying out the case that pro-life Attorney General Don Stenberg will make during oral arguments before the high court. By Thursday, 24 amicus curiae - "friend-of-the-court" - briefs offered additional legal arguments in support of Nebraska's position.
The closely-watched case will be heard April 25, seven months after the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision that the Nebraska ban was unconstitutional. The two courts ruled, among other things, that the state statute was written in such a broad way that it would ban several abortion procedures, including one of the most frequently used.
Stenberg, in his case against LeRoy Carhart, a Bellevue, Nebraska man who performs abortions, maintains that the statute applies to a single abortion procedure, partial-birth abortion. Stenberg also says that by banning partial-birth abortions, the state does not impose an "undue burden" on a woman's so-called right to an abortion prior to fetal viability.
In their friend-of-the-court briefs, numerous states - including Iowa, Illinois, North and South Dakota, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Alabama, Idaho, Wisconsin, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi - sided with Nebraska's argument that the ban applies only to partial-birth abortions. The governors of West Virginia and Rhode Island and the New Jersey Legislature also were represented in the state briefs.
Thirty-two members of Congress, including Reps. Lee Terry, R-Neb., and Henry Hyde, R-Ill., filed their own briefs.
Twelve medical groups, among them the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the Illinois State Medical Society and the Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth, filed a brief addressing some of the medical issues raised by Stenberg, such as how the partial-birth abortion procedure is neither safe nor necessary.
A sad turn to the pro-life work happened, though.
According to the Omaha World-Herald, March 29, State Senator John Hilgert, faced with increasing criticism from fellow lawmakers and with pro-life groups intent on banning fetal-tissue research, State Sen. John Hilgert of Omaha took his own bill off the agenda of the Nebraska Legislature.
Many people are questioning the agenda that Disney presents in its movies and cartoons. It is through its movies, cartoons and characters, that Disney indoctrinates our youth, at a very early age on the occult, homosexuality, and abortion.
Their Sunday evening Disney movie, Life-Sized, deals with showing children how to become involved in the occult. Within the first 10 minutes of the "family" movie, you see how a pre-teen girl finds out about witchcraft on the Internet, learns where kids can buy items of the occult at the back of bookstores, and how to do spells. Disney clearly is encouraging children to learn about spells, witchcraft, signs, etc.
It is a surprise to many parents that Disney Corporation is a propaganda tool for the abortion industry, though in recent years the corporation has certainly begun to show its lack of morality and anti-child mentality. The shock waves that washed across American Christians when Disney supported and promoted homosexuality was obvious by the sudden drop in support of the misnamed "family-viewing entertainment" corporation.
The "Population Research Institute" is distributing a 1968 Disney video starring Donald Duck in order to encourage the use of contraception. In the video, Donald explains that the world is heavily overpopulated, but that science provides the solution -- in the form of contraception.
Of course, many experts today not only reject the theory of overpopulation but are exposing the decreasing population in this country as well as worldwide. But the Donald Duck video is being sold in a packet of other pro-contraceptive videos, and it is well known that people will be more open to a cartoon character than a real human. Cartoon characters are innocent, aren't they, and oh, so honest!
Disney, for its part, stopped distributing this video in 1988, though we see little legal action in stopping the distribution of the video via the pro-abortion organizations, and, even more important, they apparently stand by the anti-life information propaganda, since there has been no disclaimer of their support of the evil theories presented by Mr. Duck!
Attorneys for the company allege that the "Population Research Institute" is acting illegally by selling the video, but we find no apologies for the lies and anti-child garbage they have produced in their studios! - K.S.
"When God wants a great work done in the world or a great wrong righted, He goes about it in a very unusual way. He doesn't stir up his earthquakes or send forth his thunder bolts. Instead, He has a helpless baby born, perhaps in a simple home and of some obscure mother. And then God puts the idea into the mother's heart, and she puts it into the baby's mind. And then God waits. The greatest forces in the world are not the earthquakes and the thunderbolts; the greatest forces in the world are babies."
--author unknown
More than twenty activists stormed into Mary Queen of the World Cathedral, in Montreal, on March 7, burning homemade crosses, spray painting altars and walls, blaspheming, throwing condoms and attempting to overturn the tabernacle all the while calling for the "right" to abortion. Police arrested three women in their 20s, a girl younger than 18 and three men in their 20s, charging them with illegal assembly. They were released on a promise to appear in court. The police refused to name the criminals. The police did say that two of the people arrested will also be charged with assault against police officers, and another with obstruction.
Father Jean-Pierre Couturier, the vicar of the parish told the Post that the "anti-Christians" were turning over flowerpots and sticking sanitary napkins -- some soiled -- to pictures and walls. Women's undergarments were found strewn around the church and hymn books were torn apart.
A witness told the paper that the attack was orchestrated by feminist activists celebrating International Women's Day. The demonstration commenced in Phillips Square with about 50 participants yelling for abortion and against sexism. [LSN.ca]
Iowa State University (ISU) students who feast at residence hall dining services often eat with tabletents [folded cards with a message or name] in front of them, which promote everything from campus groups to government of the student body elections.
However, some changes may be in store due to a negative reaction from some ISU diners about the content of a recent tabletent that promoted a pro-life message.
The tent, which had a non-graphic flier titled "2 Heathers," was sponsored by the campus organization Young Americans Foundation (YAF). Through illustrations, it detailed the birthing choices of two mothers.
One mother murdered her child after birth and was sentenced to prison. The other "Heather" opted for a partial-birth abortion and was rewarded for her choice.
Associate Director of Residence Virginia Arthur said the Department of Residence has received numerous complaints about the tabletent, and some people have requested that the department censor some tabletents' content.
"We don't want to get into regulating the content of tabletents. How the program is run right now, if we put one tent on, we have to put them all on," she said. "The format and graphic design of last week's tabletent was unacceptable. We may end up having to go to nothing on the tables at all."
Arthur said the Department of Residence does not have a policy to regulate the content of tabletents; the determining factor simply pertains to the process of approving tabletents for distribution.
"We do not have a detailed process of what information can go on the tabletents. Right now, we require that requests be from student organizations and that the information is not offensive. We restrict how many days the tents may be displayed and require submission of the idea so many days in advance," she said.
Arthur said the most common requests for table tents include advertisements for activities involving student organizations and student government elections.
She also said they receive suggestions for Department of Residence activities and events within the university itself, such as theatrical and musical productions.
John Kramer, assistant manager of food service for Maple-Willow-Larch, said food-service employees have little say on what can be put on the tables in the dining rooms.
"People bring table tents to us, and we ask if they are approved. If they are, they show us the Department of Residence stamp of approval, and then they are allowed to put them on the tables," he said.
Ben Studenski, president of the Young Americans Foundation, said the members of the group decided to put up the tents. "The table tents speak for themselves," he said.
Studenski, senior in industrial engineering, said he hasn't received much feedback from students, but he wouldn't be surprised if there were differing opinions.
"It's a controversial issue," he said. "People have reactions one way or the other."
Haley Rose, freshman in political science, said she believes there is a certain time and place for some topics to be discussed.
"'2 Heathers' is not something that I would like to see while having a meal at food service, but even though I can't control what is placed there, I can choose not to read it," she said.
Thea Singleton, freshman in elementary education, agreed that some topics are not appropriate for display in the dining halls.
"I feel that the topic discussed on '2 Heathers' was too pointed to be on a food-service table. It wasn't what I needed to see while I was eating dinner," she said. [Women and Children First]
![[IMAGE]](twst_bar.gif){kind=small}