333,964 Abortions: Planned Parenthood Breaks Their Own Record

Copy of an old Planned Parenthood brochure.

 

Planned Parenthood set a new record. They performed 333,964 abortions in 2010-2012, which is the highest number for any one year in their history.

Planned Parenthood received $542.4 million in government funds during their latest reporting period.

The Baptist Press article describing this says in part:

WASHINGTON (BP) — Planned Parenthood has set a record for the number of abortions in its clinics, according to its newly released annual report.

“Americans are sick and tired of underwriting the nation’s largest abortion business.” –- Marorie Dannenfelser

The country’s No. 1 abortion provider said its affiliates performed 333,964 of the lethal procedures during 2010-11, the most recent year for which statistics are available. The previous yearly record for Planned Parenthood clinics was 332,278 in 2009.
Planned Parenthood also established a record for funds received from federal, state and local governments. It received $542.4 million in government grants and reimbursements during the latest fiscal year. Those public funds were nearly half of Planned Parenthood’s $1.2 billion in total revenue for the year. The organization’s revenue outpaced expenses by $87.4 million.

“Planned Parenthood has spent much of the last few years demanding that taxpayers add millions more to their coffers, citing their non-profit status and so-called focus on women’s health,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List. “What have we received for our money? While government subsidies to Planned Parenthood have reached an all time high, so too has the number of lives ended by this profit-driven abortion business.”

She added in a written statement, “As if these numbers weren’t already horrifying, Planned Parenthood has upped the ante even further by mandating that all affiliates provide abortions beginning this year. Americans are sick and tired of underwriting the nation’s largest abortion business.”

The abortion toll at Planned Parenthood actually is higher than its record-keeping for the year shows.(Read more here.)

Supreme Court Declines Stem Cell Case

WASHINGTON (BP) — The Supreme Court declined Monday (Jan. 7) to hear a case about the Obama administration’s funding of embryonic stem cell research, thereby allowing the continued use of taxpayer dollars for studies that require the destruction of human embryos.

The high court refused to hear an appeal from two scientists who have been challenging the funding.

“Americans should not be forced to pay for experiments that destroy human life, have produced no real-world treatments, and violate federal law — especially in burdened fiscal times like these,” said Steven H. Aden, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which helped litigate the case against the Obama administration.

“Congress designed a law to ensure that Americans don’t pay any more precious taxpayer dollars for needless research made irrelevant by adult stem cell and other research,” Aden said in a news release. “That law is clear, and we had hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold its clear intent.”

At issue is whether the Obama administration’s policy violates the 1996 Dickey-Wicker Amendment, an annual spending bill rider which bars federal funds for “research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death.”

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in August upheld a federal judge’s dismissal of a legal challenge to Obama’s 2009 executive order that overturned a more restrictive funding policy under President George W. Bush. As a result, federal guidelines continued to allow funding for research on stem cells derived from embryos created by in vitro fertilization.

Many scientists and biotech firms have promoted embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) — and federal funds for the experimentation — even though the extraction of such cells from an embryo results in the destruction of the days-old human being. (Read more here.)

Archbishop Coakley: Pray for Life, Marriage and Religious Liberty

This letter from Archbishop Paul Coakley of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City was read in the churches in the archdiocese this weekend.

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

The year 2013 promises to be one of great consequence on many fronts for our Church and our Nation. With the looming threat to our religious liberty posed by the HHS mandate, the rapid erosion of respect for human life and the unprecedented assault on the institution of marriage taking hold in our nation we bishops of the United States are issuing a Call to Prayer.

St. Thomas Becket, whom the Church honors as I write this letter, was a martyr for the sake of justice. As Archbishop of Canterbury he steadfastly defended the rights of the Church against the unjust interference of his king. He wrote, “If we who are called bishops desire to understand the meaning of our calling and to be worthy of it, we must strive to keep our eyes on him whom God appointed high priest forever, and to follow in his footsteps.” In a similar spirit during our November Plenary Assembly we bishops of the United States determined that it is our duty as shepherds to mobilize the entire Church against the threats against people of faith in our day.

Consequently, we have issued a Call to Prayer for Life, Marriage and Religious Liberty. I want to join my voice to that of my fellow bishops in summoning the faithful, clergy and religious of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City to embrace this coordinated spiritual effort to combat these looming challenges to the free and public exercise of our faith. We ought to understand this spiritual effort in conjunction with the Year of Faith, inasmuch as we are defending concerns that are integral to our faith as its public consequences. These threats call for a public witness and a concerted spiritual effort.

There are many ways to participate as individuals, families, parishes and schools. Here are five key components to this Call to Prayer.

Beginning now and continuing through Christ the King Sunday on November 24, 2013, cathedrals and parishes are urged to have a monthly Eucharistic Holy Hour for Life, Marriage and Religious Liberty.
Families and individuals are encouraged to pray the daily Rosary, especially for the preservation of Life, Marriage and Religious Liberty in our nation.
At Sunday and daily Masses, we encourage that the Prayers of the Faithful include special intentions for respect for all human life from conception to natural death, the strengthening of marriage and family life and the preservation of religious liberty both in our nation and abroad.
Recognizing the importance of spiritual and bodily sacrifice in the life of the Church, we encourage abstinence from meat and fasting on Fridays for the intention of the protection of life, marriage and religious liberty.
There will be another national Fortnight of Freedom at the end of June and beginning of July 2013. This Fortnight effort will emphasize marriage in a particular way in the face of the potential Supreme Court rulings expected during this time. It will also emphasize the need for conscience protection in view of the August 1, 2013 deadline for religious organizations to comply with the HHS mandate. It will emphasize religious freedom concerns in other areas, such as immigration, adoption and humanitarian services as well. The focus will be on the God-given nature of religious freedom and the right to publicly witness to our faith in the public square as well as the rights of individuals and institutions to conduct their professional lives in accord with their religious convictions.
A website with the plan for the Call to Prayer and many additional resources is available at www.usccb.org/life-marriage-liberty. I urge you to participate in this important Call to Prayer for our Nation and our Church. With prayerful best wishes for you and yours during this New Year, I am

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Paul S. Coakley
Archbishop of Oklahoma City

Passing Holocaust Tattoos from One Generation to the Next

Israeli grandchildren of Holocaust survivors are beginning to have their own arms tattooed with the same number that their grandparents had put on them in the concentration camps. This is an interesting way to memorialize what happened to their grandparents. I would guess that it also eases whatever remaining shame these Holocaust survivors may feel.

It seems especially poignant to me since we live in a time when whole sections of our population are being marginalized and reduced to non-human status. I am thinking specifically of the unborn, especially unborn children who have disabilities, and people who are feeble with age and injury whose lives we have begun to think of as so burdensome to the rest of us that they should be given the “right” to self-euthanize.

The article, which was published on the German website DW, says in part:

Soon, there will no longer be any living Holocaust survivors. But in Israel, some of their grandchildren are choosing to have themselves tattooed with the concentration camp ID numbers on their grandparents’ arms.
Holocaust survivors are disappearing and, with them, the memory of what they went through.
But some of their children and grandchildren have found a way to preserve the past – by tattooing on their arms the very numbers the Nazis inscribed on their victims. The crude mark that had been a concrete and painful reminder of the Holocaust has turned into a strong symbol of solidarity for some of the survivors’ family members.

Arik Diamant, a 33-year-old from the Israeli city of Herzliya, came up with the idea four years ago to duplicate his late grandfather Yosef Diamant’s Auschwitz identification number on his own arm.

“I went to my father and told him I wanted to tattoo my grandfather’s number,” Diamant told DW. “But I said I would do it after he passed away. My father told me right away that there was no reason to wait and that we could go and ask grandpa right now what he thought about it.”

Diamant didn’t wait. One Friday night, after the weekly dinner he and his family ate with his grandfather, he delicately brought up the idea.

“I told him that if it bothered him at all, I wouldn’t do it. At first, he was really shocked and asked me why I would want to do something like that,” remembered Diamant. “But then he stopped me and said, ‘When you have a grandchild and he asks you what it is, will you tell him about me?’”

Diamant’s story has been worked into a documentary film to be released soon: “Numbers,” produced by Uriel Sinai and Dana Doron.

Ayal Gelles’ arm on the right and his grandfather Avraham Nachshon’s on the left
Ideology of numbers

Diamant is one of a growing number of young Israeli Jews who are deciding to preserve their grandparents’ stories in this way. About three years ago, Ayal Gelles, a 28-year-old from Tel Aviv, tattooed the number of his grandfather, Avraham Nachshon, during a trip to South America. Gelles said he had thought it over for a while – but it was a cow that sealed his decision.

Gelles says that that the same day he got the tattoo he also became a vegan after reading a book by Charles Peterson, who writes that, for animals, every day is like a day in the Treblinka concentration camp. Gelles sees the story of the meat industry as a reflection of the Holocaust: a story of superiority and subordination, of one being above all else. And that triggered him to get the tattoo.(Read more here.)

Killing Women in the Name of Reproductive Health

The IUD is making a come-back.

Thirty years after lawsuits concerning deaths, hospitalizations and infections from IUDs forced pharmaceutical companies into bankruptcy, the dangerous contraceptive crowd is back, pushing them at women again.

I just read an interesting 1974 CDC article assessing the risk of IUDs to women back then. The article was written early-on in the debate about the dangers of the devices. One statement stood out for me. The article blandly discusses deaths caused by the IUD and goes on to comment that the numbers were still insufficient to be statistically significant.

Excuse me, CDC. But you weren’t talking about a drug for cancer where the risk that some people with a terminal disease would die of drug complications might outweigh the good of other people living who wouldn’t otherwise. The IUD is an entirely unnecessary, totally elective form of contraception. If no one uses it, no one dies. Given that, even one death, one infection, one hospitalization or “loss of subsequent fertility” is far too many.

This easy acceptance of the idea that it’s ok to risk women’s lives with contraceptives is misogynist. Can you imagine any device that would cause men to cramp in their most intimate areas, give them infections in those areas, maybe make them sterile, or even kill them being bandied about so easily?

Can you imagine whole troops of politicians and medical practitioners calling this an advance in “men’s health” and bemoaning the fact that there aren’t more men willing to avail themselves of all this goodness?

Of course not. The thought itself is ludicrous. But when we do it to women, why, nobody even questions it.

IUDs are part of “women’s health.” The population control people have historically pushed IUDs in what we like to call Third World Countries, meaning, of course, people we patronize and manipulate without any requirements for responsibility or concern for their welfare.

If the misogynists in our medical/political professions don’t mind endangering women in the United States who have access to malpractice lawyers, then we have to assume that they really don’t mind endangering women in “Third World Countries” who can’t fight back. That’s how it seems and also how it plays out in real life.

That’s why we hear bizarre statements about how women in America are finally “catching up” with women in Mexico in their use of IUDs. Our population control people have been dumping these devices on women in Mexico for some time now. They’ve been the lab rats to see if the numbers of women who are injured by the devices will rise to the level of statistical significance.

We’ve turned some sort of corner regarding the use of hormones and devices to shut down women’s fertility. There was a time when we had an actual women’s rights movement who stood up and argued against these things. But now, the women’s rights movement is nothing but the abortion movement. It is so aligned with population control people, pornographers, gay rights advocates and the pro deathers, that it can not and will not speak out against the misogynistic practice of pushing dangerous birth control on unsuspecting women.

We have reached a time when the President of the United States is able to successfully market abortion and free contraceptives as women’s rights and the women’s rights movement supports him in doing this. No wonder the people who push dangerous birth control devices feel free to once again begin exploiting and endangering American women just has they do women in “Third World Countries.”

Between “lawsuit reform” from the right and the idea that women’s rights is nothing more than abortion and birth control from the left, it’s an open field day on American women once again.

LifeSiteNews published an interesting article about the growth of IUD use among American women. It reads in part:

 

November 20, 2012 (pop.org) – A growing number of American women are turning to intrauterine devices (IUDs), reports Lawrence Finer of the Guttmacher Institute. Of all American women using birth control, some 7.5 percent had IUDs implanted by 2009. These numbers were double what they had been a few short years before.

As befits an employee of a population control organization, Finer is pleased that women are choosing “long-acting” contraceptives over “short-acting, less effective methods.” Fertility delayed is fertility denied, as we say in demographic circles.

Most of the increase in IUD use has come from sales of Bayer’s levonorgestrel IUD, a so-called “second generation” contraceptive, which is marketed under the trade name “Mirena.” No surprise here. Since Mirena was approved by the FDA in 2000, Bayer has spent tens of millions of dollars advertising the IUD directly to the consumer.

The Mirena IUD can prevent conception, but it can also prevent a newly conceived embryo from implanting in the uterine wall.

As a result of this advertising campaign, Finer notes, “Women born in the United States appear to be ‘catching up’ to women born outside the United States, who already had a higher level of use, likely due to a greater prevalence of these methods in Mexico.”

The implication here is that women outside of the U.S. are more “advanced” in their contraceptive use than their benighted American sisters, but nothing could be further from the truth. The reason that IUDs are more prevalent in Mexico is simple: the Mexican government coerces women into accepting them. Either accept an IUD or have your tubes tied, new mothers are told. What would you choose?

The same is true of Finer’s factoid about high IUD use in China. The reason that 41 percent of women in China have IUDs is because China’s population control authorities insist that women either wear IUDs or be sterilized after they give birth. That’s not good news for women. Indeed, it’s not good news for anybody, unless of course you fear human fertility.

Bayer’s advertising campaign for Mirena, although expensive, has more than paid for itself. More than a million American women have been convinced to spend nearly $800 apiece buying the IUD. This has generated over a billion dollars in revenue for the German pharmaceutical giant, a good bargain by anyone’s calculation.

Bayer and other abortifacient contraceptive manufacturers also stand to make a lot of money from Obamacare. The HHS mandate will require all healthcare plans to cover the full range of contraceptive methods, including Mirena, at no cost to the patient. In other words, we taxpayers are about to make Bayer shareholders rich.

Finer refers to IUDs, including Mirena, as “contraceptive devices,” but IUDs act by aborting already conceived children, not by preventing their conception. An IUD is, in effect, a tiny abortion machine that prevents pregnancy by physically obstructing the normal process by which a tiny baby implants in the uterus of its mother.

Mirena, it is true, is more than just an IUD. It also contains a synthetic “hormone” called levonorgestrel that some months prevents ovulation. Even when what is called “breakthrough ovulation” occurs, the progestin sometimes still prevents conception by thickening the cervical mucus and preventing sperm from reaching the ovum. Still, when this doesn’t happen, a baby can be conceived and begin its 5 to 7 day journey down the Fallopian tube. But when it reaches the uterus itself it encounters the grim reaper in the guise of an IUD and its life is over. An early-term abortion occurs.

We should not forget the side effects, which fall into two different categories. Many women react badly to having their bodies laced with a powerful, steroid-based drug, levonorgestrel. Others find that having a foreign body lodged in their uterus can be an uncomfortable, even unhealthy, experience.

Finer claimed in an interview with Fox News that IUDs do not increase the risk of pelvic infection and jeopardize women’s future fertility.

But the list of unwanted side effects of Mirena is quite long. These include amenorrhea, intermenstrual bleeding and spotting, abdominal pain, pelvic pain, ovarian cysts, headache, migraines, acne, depression, and mood swings. The Truth About Mirena website contains hundreds of detailed accounts of such side effects by women who have personally suffered from them. It makes for grim reading.

One of the more dangerous side effects is that Mirena may become embedded into the wall of the uterus, or it may actually perforate it. In fact, there have been reports of the IUD actually migrating outside the uterus through a hole of its own making, there to cause scarring, infection, or damage to other organs. If the device embeds in or perforates the uterine wall, surgery will be required to remove it.

With all of these side effects, it is no surprise that the number of lawsuits is proliferating. If you type “Mirena” into your search engine, along with information about the IUD, a number of ads offering legal representation to those harmed by the device will pop up.

In the beginning, Bayer aggressively marketed Mirena to a “Busy Mom” demographic as a hassle-free form of birth control. But in 2009, the FDA issued a warning letter to Bayer after finding its Mirena promotions overstated the efficacy of the device, presented unsubstantiated claims, minimized the risks of Mirena, and used false and misleading presentations during in-home events touting the IUD. FDA berated Bayer for its so-called “overstatement of efficacy”, taking issue with marketing claims touting Mirena’s purported ability to improve a woman’s sex life and help her “look and feel great.” (Read more here.)

The Pill: Killing Women in the Name of Reproductive Health

Remember Yaz?

I’ve lost count of the Yaz commercials I saw. Here are a couple of examples. Notice the lack of warning about side effects and the age of the girls this pill is marketed to in the first one.

YouTube Preview Image

 

And another ad pushing Yaz, but this time with warnings:

 

YouTube Preview Image

 

And the FDA finally takes note of the young women who are dying because of this totally unnecessary medication:

YouTube Preview Image

 

The important thing to remember is that none of this is necessary. Yaz is not being used to treat cancer or any other illness. It is marketed for mild teen-age acne, pre-menstrual emotional upset and to prevent pregnancy. It is an entirely elective medication with fatal side effects, being marketed directly to young women and girls.

After Yaz had been on the market a number of years, and probably damaged the health of many young women, ABC News finally wrote a story about it.

The 2011 ABC News article reads in part:

The blockbuster birth control pill with benefits, Yaz was pitched as the choice for women desperate for relief from severe PMS and acne. But now, new independent studies have found that Yaz carries higher blood clotting risks than other leading birth control pills.

ABC News investigated whether tens of millions of women switched to a more potentially risky pill that, as it turns out, was never proven to treat common PMS.

In 2007, Carissa Ubersox, 24, was fresh out of college and starting her dream job as a pediatric nurse in Madison, Wis. On Christmas day, while working the holiday shift, her boyfriend surprised her at the hospital with a marriage proposal.

Wanting to look and feel her best for her wedding day, Carissa said she switched to Yaz after watching one of its commercials that suggested this pill could help with bloating and acne.

“Yaz is the only birth control proven to treat the physical and emotional premenstrual symptoms that are severe enough to impact your life,” claimed the ad.

It “sounds like a miracle drug,” Carissa said she remembers thinking.

But just three months later, in February 2008, Carissa’s legs started to ache. She didn’t pay much attention to it, assuming, she said, that it was just soreness from being on her feet for a 12-hour shift.

Birth Control Medication Under
Investigation Watch Video

By the next evening, she was gasping for air. Blood clots in her legs had traveled through her veins to her lungs, causing a massive double pulmonary embolism.

Her fiance called 911, but on the way to the hospital Carissa’s heart stopped. Doctors revived her, but she slipped into a coma for almost two weeks.

Carissa’s only memory of that time is something she refers to as an extraordinary dreamlike experience. She said she remembers a big ornate gate and seeing a recently deceased cousin.

That cousin, Carissa said, told her, “You can stay here with me or you can go back.”

But, she recounted, he told her if she goes back she’ll end up blind.

“I just remember waking up in the hospital and I was like, ‘Oh, I guess I chose to stay,’” Carissa told ABC News.

Like her cousin in her dreamlike experience foretold, she actually did wake up blind, and remains blind to this day.

(Read more here.)

491 Canadian Babies Survived Abortions and Left to Die

The grisly logic of abortion is most apparent in the debates and discussions concerning what to do with and for babies who, against all the odds, manage to survive an abortion.

In most places, these little ones are discarded. Left alone, untended and untouched, they die the lonely death of a human who has been deemed less than human by other people.

As one nurse here in Oklahoma described it to me, “No one does anything to keep them warm or give them fluids. No one picks them up or holds them.” She described one baby girl who survived 13 hours like this.

This hardness of heart of medical professionals is equalled by the pro-abortion people and the politicians I have tried to talk to about this. I have been met with indifference from the politicians and one of the coldest statements I’ve ever heard from a pro-abortion person.

“That’s the doctor’s fault,” this person told me, “he should have killed the baby with a lethal injection before the abortion.”

This statement, with its frank acknowledgement that this baby could have survived and assertion that the only fault in the whole thing was that the doctor hadn’t killed it more effectively, still troubles me.

It was one of those dear God what have we become moments for me. What has abortion and this power to kill at will turned us into?

It appears that it has made those who support abortion into people who welcome every aspect of a constantly-expanding culture of death. Euthanasia has become the new abortion; the latest legal hurdle to be jumped in the on-going race toward an absolute culture of death.

People who support abortion always seem to jump on the newest killing bandwagon, whatever it is. They find an argument that makes killing a “right” of some sort for each new murderous idea that the purveyors of death hatch up. They never see the essential wrongness of laws that legalize killing the weak and defenseless.

Their inculturation in the death-dealing logic of killing as a solution for the messiness of life has taught them to regard the lives of needy human beings as an unfair burden on the rest of us. The sanctity of human life is an enemy in a world run by this logic, an irrational barrier to doing what they want with whomever they decide should die. Human life is something to be controlled and wiped out whenever it becomes troubling.

We’ve moved to an all-out commodification of human beings with designer babies and embryonic stem cell research. Women, as usual, are commodities in this brave new world whose reproductive capacities are farmed by egg harvesters and whose uteri are rented by those who want the “services” of a surrogate. This new form of prostitution is destructive to women in ways that previous generations of misogynists could never have imagined.

At the same time, more and more of our young people eschew the joys of marriage. They dismiss the incredible privilege and happiness of forming their own families and raising their own children to chase after transient stuff and nonsense which offers no fulfillment, robs people of their peace and sets the whole of society on a suicidal path.

Is it any wonder, given the utterly bizarre way that our society is tending, that we are indifferent as a culture to the lives of children who are born alive after an abortion? We are a people who will charge someone with a felony for mistreating a cat or dog but who studiously support those who do nothing to comfort or aid a newborn baby we’ve decided shouldn’t be alive in the first place.

I’ve dealt first hand with the indifference of politicians to babies who survive abortions. It was a chilling realization for me. Nice people can zip on their compassion-proof suits and become indifference itself to this crime against humanity. Their hardness of heart is absolute, and it extends to people who try to reason with them about what they are doing.

There is no indifference to suffering like the indifference of someone who has decided that other people are not fully human and they can kill them if they want. There is no anger like the anger of these people when you tell them that what they are doing is wrong.

The killing indifference of abortion depends on the illusion that the babies who die are not babies, are not human, feel nothing, are nothing. This illusion is necessary to maintain the parallel illusion that abortion is a kindness and that we are doing nothing wrong by supporting it.

Maybe that’s why the proponents of abortion on demand are so adamant that this killing rite be extended to any baby that survives the abortion itself. A “failed abortion” with a living child at the end of it is a frightening reminder of what we are doing.

It also, in the logic of abortion, cancels out the decision the woman made when she decided to abort in the first place. Here she’s made her “choice” and gone through an abortion, only to end up with a baby anyway. How gross.

A living child at the end of an abortion is more than an inconvenience. It is an assault on the illusions that sustain abortion as a “right.” Is it any wonder that these little ones are shuffled aside and ignored to death? Any other action would paint a bull’s eye on the entire linguistic edifice that sustains the lies of abortion.

A LifeNews article says that an admitted 491 babies survived abortions and were then left to die in Canada last year. I’m sure the actual number is much higher, for the simple reason that most of these babies don’t make it onto the charts. I’ve heard stories about babies who survived abortions here in Oklahoma from nurses and hospital chaplains. From what I was told, none of these babies were ever officially charted as being alive.

I admire LifeNews and often use them as a source. But I do not agree with the article’s assumption that the Infant Born Alive Act here in the United States protects babies who survive abortions. Based on first-hand accounts from professionals who work in our hospitals here in Oklahoma, I do not believe that it does.

However, the article still provides an interesting analysis of the part of this tragedy that is out in the open in Canada.

The LifeNews article reads in part:

Figures from Statistics Canada, a federal government agency, show 491 babies were born alive following botched abortions during the period from 2000-2009 and left to die afterwards. The numbers have pro-life advocates up in arms.

Andre Schutten, legal counsel for ARPA Canada, noticed the numbers and blogged about themrecently.

The blog Run with Life has reported that, from 2000 to 2009, 491 babies have been born alive following a failed abortion procedure, and subsequently left to die. And those are only the ones that are recordedby Statistics Canada.

The blog explains that “there were 491 abortions, of 20 weeks gestation and greater, that resulted in live births. This means that the aborted child died afterit was born. These abortions are coded as P96.4 or ‘Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborn’.

The question that should immediately present itself is, why has there not been 491 homicide investigations or prosecutions in connection with these deaths? Section 223(2) of the Criminal Code (the accompanying subsection to the now infamous subsection that Mr. Woodworth’s motion 312 was examining) reads “A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.” That is to say, anyone who interferes with a pregnancy such that the child dies after it is born alive due to that interference, is guilty of homicide.

So again, why have there been no criminal prosecutions? Why no outcry? And why are the provinces funding this explicitly criminal activity? (Read more here.) 

Is This Your First Blob of Tissue?

No matter how much they may claim that killing is a “right” people who advance the culture of death do what those who want to kill with impunity always do: They obfuscate the language to hide the facts of what they are doing from the world at large — and from themselves.

These twists and turns of ordinary language are not just an attempt to hide the truth of killing, they are also a form of justification. Thus, legalized medical murder becomes “death with dignity,” abortion becomes a “choice,” and embryonic stem cell research is the only hope for “miracle cures.”

In every case of legalized killing, the object of language is no longer to accurately communicate and facilitate analysis and thought. It is used instead as a tool to confuse, delude and shut off an accurate assessment of the situation by hiding the facts of it in plain sight.

The video below pokes a few holes in the language obfuscations of abortion by simply taking the obfuscating language of “choice” out of the vacuum of political debate and putting it in normal contexts.

 

YouTube Preview Image

Calling Evil Good: How Many People Do You Have to Kill Before It’s Wrong? Part 1

Euthanasia in the Netherlands

1. 17% of euthanasia victims were euthanized by doctors without the patient’s consent.

2. In 2006 the Royal Dutch Medical Association said that “being over the age of 70 and tired of living” was an acceptable reason for euthanasia.

3. Since 1994, it has been legal to euthanize people for being in mental anguish. 

4. On March 1, 2012, the Dutch Association for a Voluntary End to Life launched mobile euthanasia units. The sick and their families can make application by phone or email. 

5. Thirteen psychiatric patients were murdered by euthanasia last year. 

The reasoning people who advocate euthanasia use to arrive at their conclusions amazes me.

They construct their arguments on a base of fantasy and inaccurate assumptions and then lard on a thick layer of wishful thinking. Such a combination of callow naiveté and confabulation might be touching in a three year old child, but when it comes from adults who are advocating legalized murder, it takes on darker tones.

One of the many inaccuracies on which they base their arguments is the shining success of legalized euthanasia in the Netherlands. I have nothing against the Netherlands, but I weary of having it pushed at me as the promised land by those who are arguing for oddball social issues here in America. It annoys me mainly because of its cloying inaccuracies and facile assumptions.

Let’s take a look at the Euthanasia promised land to which, we are told, all Americans, except the unwashed and illiterate traditional Christians with their rock-headed defenses of the right to life for all people, should aspire.

One assumption that is advanced by euthanasia advocates is that “death with dignity,” which is their euphemism for euthanasia, would only occur in the most controlled, charitable circumstances involving mostly elderly, terminally ill people facing imminent death. It is asserted that these people would all be in the last straits of unbearable suffering from uncontrollable pain, begging for release in the only way possible — immediate death.

Does that about sum it up?

It doesn’t happen like that in real life. Not even in the Netherlands. I am not going to go in depth with this post. Instead, I will confine it to one aspect of the argument: That no one will be euthanized unless they are terminally ill and choose it of their own free will. I’ll go into the other arguments in later posts.

According to studies in The Lancet and Current Oncology, the rate of euthanasia in the Netherlands has grown by 73% in the last 8 years. One in five of the people who were murdered did not request euthanasia and were unaware that they were being euthanized. 

The Current Oncology article says,

The reasons for not discussing the decision to end the person’s life and not obtaining consent were that patients were comatose (70% of cases) or had dementia (21% of cases). In 17% of cases, the physicians proceeded without consent because they felt that euthanasia was “clearly in the patient’s best interest” and, in 8% of cases, that discussing it with the patient would have been harmful to that patient. Those findings accord with the results of a previous study in which 25 of 1644 non-sudden deaths had been the result of euthanasia without explicit consent.

Initially, in the 1970s and 1980s, euthanasia and pas advocates in the Netherlands made the case that these acts would be limited to a small number of terminally ill patients experiencing intolerable suffering and that the practices would be considered last-resort options only. By 2002, euthanasia laws in neither Belgium nor the Netherlands limited euthanasia to persons with a terminal disease (recognizing that the concept of “terminal” is in itself open to interpretation and errors). The Dutch law requires only that a person be “suffering hopelessly and unbearably.” “Suffering” is defined as both physical and psychological, which includes people with depression … By 2006, the Royal Dutch Medical Association had declared that “being over the age of 70 and tired of living” should be an acceptable reason for requesting euthanasia. That change is most concerning in light of evidence of elder abuse in many societies, including Canada, and evidence that a large number of frail elderly people and terminally ill patients already feel a sense of being burden on their families and society, and a sense of isolation. The concern that these people may feel obliged to access euthanasia or pas if it were to become available is therefore not unreasonable, although evidence to verify that concern is not currently available.

As noted in the Current Oncology article, the Netherlands began the argument for euthanasia at the same place we are now in the United States. Nobody would ever be euthanized against their will. This new license to kill would never, no never, be abused because we can trust doctors to kill us without misusing the power.

Is there any part of this argument that an adult should believe? Evidently, a lot of adults do believe it, for reasons that confound me. In what should be no surprise at all to someone who has dealt with human frailty and sinfulness, which in my opinion, would be anyone over the age of 5, the law in the Netherlands has been abused. Not only that, it has been broadened.

In 1994, 50-year-old Netty Boomsma went to her psychiatrist, Dr Boudewijn Chabot, requesting euthanasia. Her son had died, and, according to the article, she was “in despair.” She requested no treatment, and none was offered to her. She was not physically ill. She asked Dr Chabot to kill her and he obliged. He was charged with a crime for this and the Dutch Supreme Court  gave a verdict the next day finding him not guilty.

That is how the Dutch legally allowed euthanasia for mental anguish.

The arguments in favor of euthanasia are based on false assumptions and fallacies. I think a lot of people vote for these laws because they see them as “trendy” and against the staid world of traditional morality.

Euthanasia in the Netherlands

1. 17% of euthanasia cases were committed by doctors without the patient’s consent.

2. In 2006 the Royal Dutch Medical Association said that “being over the age of 70 and tired of living” was an acceptable reason for euthanasia.

3. Since 1994, it has been legal to euthanize people for being in mental anguish. 

4. On March 1, 2012, the Dutch Association for a Voluntary End to Life launched mobile euthanasia units. The sick and their families can make application by phone or email. 

5. Thirteen psychiatric patients were murdered by euthanasia last year. 

Marriage and Euthanasia: Your Most Important Vote May Be Further Down the Ballot

“The vote in Massachusetts on doctor-prescribed death will be one of the

most consequential votes in America this November.” National Right to Life

 

The most important vote you cast next Tuesday may not be when you chose between President Obama and Governor Romney. Your most important vote might very well be quite a bit further down the ballot.

Voters in several states are faced with culture-destroying, life-ending votes on a couple of important issues.

FIRST, four states have votes on the November ballot which would change the legal status of same-sex marriage within their borders.

Read these carefully. In some states, you must vote “no” to support traditional marriage. In others, you need to vote “yes.” They are:
Maine: An initiative on the ballot seeks to legalize same-sex marriage. This is the first time a state’s voters have been directly asked to legalize same-sex marriage, rather than prohibit it. Vote “no” to support traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

Maryland: Voters will consider a popular referendum seeking to overturn a new law legalizing same-sex marriage. Vote “yes” to support traditional marriage.

Minnesota: A Minnesota Same-Sex Marriage Amendment, Amendment 1, is a constitutional amendment. The measure would define marriage as between one man and one woman.
Unlike previous, unsuccessful attempts to place a marriage amendment on the ballot, the 2012 measure may leave open the possibility of same-sex civil unions. Vote “yes” to support traditional marriage.

The question, along with the measure’s ballot title, would be presented to voters as follows:
Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples.
“Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman.”
YES
NO
Washington: Like Maryland, Washington has a popular referendum on the ballot that seeks to overturn a new law legalizing same-sex marriage. Vote “yes” to support traditional marriage.

North Carolina voters approved a same-sex marriage ban in May 2012. The “yes” vote was 61.1%. Done and done!

SECOND, Massachusetts is facing a critical vote on assisted suicide. The voters of Washington and Oregon have passed similar laws legalizing euthanasia in their states in years past. Euthanasia was legalized in Montana by a court ruling. From what I’ve read, the Catholic state of Massachusetts is teetering on the same brink.

The Catholic Church, Massachusetts Medical Society, Massachusetts Hospice and Palliative Care Federation, and the American Medical Directors Association all oppose the practice of Physician-Assisted Suicide. The Massachusett Medical Society’s statement in opposition to Question 2 said in part”

The Society’s stand against Question 2, Dr. Aghababian said, is based on the idea that physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer. He also said that predicting a person’s end of life within six months, as the ballot question states as a requirement, is difficult, as such predictions can be inaccurate. Many times patients who are expected to die within months have outlived their prognosis, sometimes for years.

I think the line that says that killing their patients is “fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer” is especially important. Killing your patients certainly is inconsistent with the role of healer. If physicians’ professional societies want patients to continue to trust their doctors, they would do well to remember that. (emphasis mine)

Here are excerpts from a National Right to Life article about this proposed law:

Massachusetts November Referendum

With the effort stymied in Vermont, all eyes turned to the upcoming Massachusetts ballot initiative.

The stakes could not be higher. The pro-euthanasia lobby deliberately targeted Massachusetts for several strategic reasons. They are hopeful that Massachusetts legalization would have a far-reaching influence. Massachusetts is home to the Harvard Medical School, which is currently ranked first among American research medical schools by U.S. News and World Report.

The New England Journal of Medicine, published by the Massachusetts Medical Society, is one of the oldest and most respected medical journals in the world. If doctor-prescribed death were to become standard medical practice in its home state, it might not be long before the notion that suicide is an appropriate response to illness would percolate through medical thought across the nation.

Nearly every proposal to legalize assisting suicide has been modeled on the law in effect in Oregon since 1997. The Oregon experience has exposed major weaknesses in supposed “safeguards.”

The pro-euthanasia lobby often makes the case for doctor-prescribed death as a response to the problem of pain. Even overlooking the troubling notion that it is a satisfactory “solution” to kill the person to whom the problem happens, the experience with Oregon’s law shows how inaccurate the pain argument is.

In Oregon, there have been several almost decade-long studies conducted to determine the motivation of those committing suicide with lethal drugs prescribed in accordance with the law. Shockingly, not one person has requested suicide because he or she was in pain. Instead, the studies show the predominant motive has been fear of becoming a burden. In fact, modern medicine has the ability to control pain—and the real solution is to have physicians and other health care personnel better trained in keeping up with cutting-edge techniques for alleviating pain.

With so much on the line in Massachusetts, can the state afford to legalize this dangerous practice of turning doctors from healers into those who prescribe death to their most vulnerable patients? The vote in Massachusetts on doctor-prescribed death will be one of the most consequential votes in America this November.

If you are a traditional Christian, and you live in one of these states, please don’t just check off the big vote at the top of the ballot and go home. Instead of voting for someone else to fight the culture wars for you, you have an opportunity to directly state your opinion with a vote of your own.

The real action is further down the ballot: Be there, or be square.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X