Four-Year-Old Girl and Her Family Ask Belgian King to Block Euthanasia of Children

Jessicasaba

Speaking of child abuse, legislators in Belgium are moving toward passage of a law that would allow doctors to euthanize children.

It all began in 2002 with a law that allowed doctors in Belgium to kill their patients who were (a) at least 18 years old, (b) of sound mind, and (c) gave their consent. Left out of this (of course) was just how questionable “consent” becomes when families and medical practitioners go at a sick person who is probably also isolated and totally dependent on them for their emotional and physical well being.

This “right” morphed a bit in 2013 when doctors began killing people who were not terminally ill, but merely facing a disability. Now, the idea of extending this “right to die” to children and people suffering from dementia is moving toward legality.

The family of four-year-old Jessica Saba has stepped into the debate to ask King Philippe to block euthanasia for children like her. I say “like her” because Jessica was born with a heart defect that required surgery to allow her to live.

You know what that kind of surgery is, don’t you? It’s expensive.

Whereas, killing the child would be oh, so much cheaper, not to mention alleviating the “suffering” of her parents and saving the baby herself from that painful wake-up from anesthesia which any surgery patent knows all too well.

When you look at it that way, it’s a blessing to kill little kids. Who could be so cruel as to deprive them of their “right” to die?

As for those difficult dementia patients, aren’t their “useful” lives over anyway? Think how much better it would be for families if they weren’t burdened with the trouble of taking care of Grandma. As for the expense, everyone knows that end of life care racks up the bucks.

I apologize for being so sarcastic. But I am at my wit’s end with people who try to justify legalized medical murder by flinging around ridiculous arguments about how killing people is a kindness to them and their “right.”

The killing of innocents is not a “human right” and it is not a kindness.

We are creating a society where we kill everyone who does not have the capacity to actively defend their life in a courtroom. If someone who can stand upright and vocalize sophisticated arguments does not speak up for them — and in certain cases such as the judicial murder of Terry Shiavo, even if they do — they can and will be killed by doctors obeying a court order. All that needs to happen is for someone else with what the court decides is “standing” to petition the court that they want their “loved one” dead.

1828189207

I hope and pray that the lawmakers of Belgium get a grip and stop this legislation themselves. But if that does not happen, we can only hope that King Philippe will step in. I assume there will be an enormous political price to pay if he does.

That is an interesting remark, isn’t it? We have come to the place in our “civilized” Western world where the political danger lies in refusing to allow oneself to be made into the executioner of little children and helpless old people.

I do not ever take a destabilizing action in governance lightly, and I assume that is what this could be. My basic premise of governance is that a just and stable government is always the greater good. However, a government that kills its old people and little children is not just. There are times when the decision is so fraught that there truly is no other option but to take the possibly destabilizing path.

Every lawmaker from the king down who says yes to this will have done something that puts them beyond the pale of civilized behavior. Every person who lobbies for it, or votes for those who pass it, will have made themselves an accomplice to it.

If the king signs this, he will make of himself the executioner of little children and helpless old people. Could you sign it? Would you?

I hope the lawmakers say no. If they don’t, I hope the king says no.

Whatever the political consequences, they are nothing compared to the moral consequences of having said yes to this measure.

YouTube Preview Image

Woody Allen and Polanski: The Rich and Shameless Display Hypocrisy About Child Sexual Abuse

Tumblr mzbqi2N23P1rjriquo1 500

Nobody hates pedophiles more than the Rich and Shameless.

At least, they hate pedophiles when the pedophile is a priest.

Pedophile priests should be — and are — burned at the stake of public opinion, and their pedophile-enabling bishops along with them. That’s the verdict of the R&S set.

However, when the pedophile is a powerful director of successful films — who might conceivably be of benefit to their careers — we are reminded of the cinema “art,” these directors provide. As for the unimportant girl-child, well, she can’t give anybody a job or produce their play or anything of value. So what’s the beef? Put away the stake, douse the flames and quit the word processor. There will be no public hating today.

Here’s how the Rich and Shameless appear to regard these things:

Catholic priest caught with child pornography on his computer:

R&S: Burn/behead/draw-and-quarter him. At the least, send him, his bishop and the bishop’s dog to a maximum security prison for life.

Powerful director rapes a teen-aged girl:

R&S: It wasn’t rape rape. Let’s sign a petition protesting the police-state arrest of this great artist.

Powerful director, at age 56, has an affair with and marries a girl he has raised as his daughter, and is accused by her sister of having raped her when she was seven:

R&S: This is just a bitter woman (the girls mother) who is trying to get this fine man, who, by the way, is a “great artist.” His “personal life” should not interfere with the professional respect he receives for his “art.”  

Does anybody but me detect a wee bit of hypocrisy here?

I have no problem with sending pedophile priests to jail. I am as disgusted with the bishops who hid them and allowed them to continue in their abuse of children as anyone on this planet.

The difference between me and the Rich and Shameless is that I feel this way because of the children. I am not interested in using the sexual abuse of children as a leitmotif to try to define and destroy the Catholic Church. I also do not excuse priests who do this because they’re on “my” team. So far as I’m concerned, it’s all about the children.

These people, that I’m calling “Rich and Shameless” for lack of a better way to describe them, excoriate Catholic priests who sexually abuse children without mercy or limit. They extend this excoriation to the Church as a whole, drubbing all priests and bishops with the same filthy brush.

Then they turn around and deny and defend powerful members of their own community from well-founded accusations of egregious sexual abuse of children. They use specious denials, personal testimonies, accusations and claims of some sort of non-existent moral high ground to excuse who they want excused from whatever they do. It gets so ridiculous that they inevitably end up skewering themselves with their own dissimulations.

I don’t think that people who do this care about the sexual abuse of children. I think they use it when the sexual abuse fits their other objectives as a means of attacking people and causes they don’t like. I think they then turn around and dismiss it, to quote Shakespeare, as much ado about nothing when the accused is one of their own, even when the accusations against their own stink like an open sewer.

Their outrage over pedophile priests looks like a pose and a sham. Their reactions to pedophiles, both charged and credibly accused, who are also powerful directors, are exhibits a and b, pointing to that conclusion.

Pro Life Groups Boycott Girl Scout Cookies: I’m Going to Pass

There are limits, and this reaches one of mine.

Pro life groups are evidently boycotting Girl Scout cookies. The reason, so far as I can tell, is that the Girl Scouts have thrown in with Planned Parenthood.

I find that disgusting. I’ve already written quite a bit about what I think of sexualizing little girls and pushing dangerous chemical birth control on them. It’s hard to fathom that the Girl Scouts are doing something like this.

However, if a little girl comes up to me in the parking lot of a convenience store, or knocks on my door, I am not going to look her in the eye and tell her that I am boycotting Girl Scout Cookies.

Ain’t gonna happen.

I’ll fork over the cash and take the cookies (which are usually stale) and toss them in the trash, just like I always do.

I’m sorry, fellow pro lifers. My spirit is with you. But my flesh doesn’t have what it takes for this one.

Can you think of another way to do this; preferably something that doesn’t involve hurting the feelings of a child who doesn’t know come here from sic ‘em about interlocking boards and organizational alliances?

I don’t think we should target kids to get at adults. Let’s go at the adults directly.

Figure out a way to do that, and I’m with you.

From TownHall.com:

Pro-life organizations are standing with a small pro-life group in Waco, Texas to boycott Girl Scout cookies over the organization’s recent “praise for Wendy Davis and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius…and because of a deep and lasting entanglement with abortion providers and abortion rights organizations,” according to the CookieCott 2014’s website.

Many groups, including the American Life League, LifeNews, the Radiance Foundation, Life Coalition International, the National Black Pro-Life Union, are standing with John Pisciotta, head of Pro-Life Waco, which has launched similar ‘CookieCotts’ in the past.

Breitbart explains:

Pisciotta’s group launched a Girl Scout cookie boycott in Waco in 2004as well after the Bluebonnet Girl Scout Council began co-sponsoring theNobody’s Fool summer sex education program offered by Planned Parenthood for Waco-area teens and pre-teens.

With this sponsorship by Planned Parenthood, Pro-Life Waco states the Bluebonnet Council placed the national Girl Scout logo on the program flyer and advertisements. In addition, Girl Scout employees served as volunteers for the Nobody’s Fool program.

Cough. “Women’s Health” Looks a Lot Like the Old Double Standard.

MP900321069 300x214 1

Oklahoma is having a bit of a kerfluffle over the morning after pill.

On one side, we have a law that passed last session, simply requiring a prescription for the morning after pill for minors.

On the other side, we have the self-appointed, self-annointed arbiters of a narrow and monstrously patriarchal ideology of feminism that says that women’s human rights center entirely around the pelvic region. The whole purpose of “women’s health” and “women’s rights” as they are pushed by these people, is not the welfare of young girls. It is making them sexually available.

The pink-shirted spokespeople for this viewpoint hold that every girl needs to dose herself with dangerous chemical forms of birth control. If that fails, every girl must then avail herself of even more dangerous and higher dosages of chemicals in the form of the morning after pill. If that fails, well, then, it’s off to the abortion clinic.

And then, I suppose, back into the back seats of cars.

Because, you see, “everybody” has sex at 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, whether they want to or not. And “everybody” needs to make sure that this sex they’re having in this randomized, callous hook-up culture that deprives them of intimacy, tenderness and caring is “safe.” 

Safe, I wonder, from what? And safe for whom?

Anytime we talk about the “teen pregnancy problem” in this country, the talk is all about how to dose young girls with as many hormones as we can possibly get into their young bodies. While Oklahoma argues about niceties like required prescriptions, New York is passing these same drugs out to school girls like candy.

Because, you see, it is well-known that we have a “teen pregnancy problem,” and the cause of this problem is that young girls aren’t properly dosed up with hormones. It has nothing … I repeat; nothing … to do with the fact that young girls in our society no longer feel free to say “no” to sexual advances.

It also has nothing to do with the fact that young girls (and boys) are so Daddy deprived, so hungry for anything that passes for male approval, that they do not have enough self to stand against the tide of exhortations, “education,” peer pressure and constant drum beat of messages from the media to demand what they want.

And what do they want? I would guess that young girls want what every other person on this planet wants: To be valued for themselves. The sick sadness of teaching them that they should search for this in random sex is beyond comprehension. 

How is pushing dangerous chemicals on them anything other than an attack on young girls’ health? How is encouraging them to be sexually available and taking away their freedom to say no anything other than a blatant destruction of their developing sense of self? 

How does targeting young girls as the way to deal with the “teen pregnancy problem” as if it was their problem alone manage to become women’s rights? Isn’t it obviously … and I say again, obviously … just the old sexual double standard all dressed up in a money-making bonanza for the people who run the bogus sex education classes and make money off pushing chemical birth control with an abortion chaser on our school kids?

This is not “women’s health.” It is also not “women’s rights.” 

It’s the double standard, in all its dehumanizing, death-dealing force, come back around again. 

This article from a few months ago, describes the situation. From the Daily Mail:

Hooked on the morning after pill

It used to be a last resort. Now a generation of young women use it as their regular contraceptive – with potentially devastating consequences

 

By JULIA LLEWELLYN SMITH

 

Tania Mirmothari was worried sick. The previous night, the 19-year-old from Wakefield, West Yorkshire, had had yet another drunken one-night stand.

Carefree at the time, the following morning she’d woken with a thumping hangover, horrified at the realisation she might be pregnant.

There was only one thing for it: Tania went to her local walk-in health centre and asked for the morning-after pill.

 
Risk-takers: Tania Mirmothari (left) and Helen Tsingos regularly take the morning after pill
 
 

Risk-takers: Tania Mirmothari (left) and Helen Tsingos regularly take the morning after pill


As she sat in the waiting room, she cringed with humiliation. Shockingly, this was Tania’s fifth visit that year. Four other times in the past 12 months she’d found herself sitting, red-faced, in the same clinic, waiting for her prescription. 

 

‘I look back with shame,’ says Tania, who is now 22, and in a long-term relationship while training to be a social worker. ‘I was just out getting drunk, messing about and being stupid, having one-night stands with boys who did not mean anything to me.


‘But going to the walk-in centre, I started to feel really embarrassed. I saw the same lady each time and she recognised me. I dreaded having to ask for the prescription, but then, what could I do?’

Many might argue that, actually, there were quite a few things Tania could have done: not drinking herself into oblivion every weekend was one; not falling into bed with a stranger another; and using contraception a third.

Like a growing number of young girls in our binge-drinking culture, however, such precautions would be abandoned around the time of her fifth vodka and coke.


‘I have friends who’ve taken it three times in one month. There’s so much pressure on us to be sexually active’

And at the back of her inebriated mind was the knowledge that, whoever she woke up with the next day, she’d be able to get hold of the morning-after pill just as easily as a paracetamol — or the next round of drinks.


Not so long ago, the morning-after pill was viewed very much as a last resort, described by health professionals as ‘emergency contraception’. It was designed for use in the rare event of regular contraceptives failing. But since it was made readily available over the counter 11 years ago, not to mention being increasingly accessible online, young women like Tania are taking it not in emergencies, but whenever it suits them, as their preferred method of contraception.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2142089/Hooked-morning-pill-It-used-resort-Now-generation-young-women-use-regular-contraceptive–potentially-devastating-consequences.html#ixzz2rdDI9PuP 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The War on Girls: Dying for Women’s Health

Source: Photobucket

I had an aunt who had blood clots because of the birth control pill.

We were lucky. Her bloods clots were in her legs and did not break off and move to her lungs, heart or brain. However, even this relatively “mild” side effect was painful and required a week in the hospital on blood thinners, which were also dangerous.

None of this was necessary. My aunt wasn’t using birth control pills because she had cancer and she needed them to save her life. She wasn’t using them because she had a disease of any sort.

My aunt took birth control pills because they had been aggressively marketed by the pharmaceutical companies and pushed by her doctor. She took them because the medical establishment and the culture as a whole has so little regard for true women’s health that they used her — along with the entire female half of the world population — as a guinea pig in social engineering masquerading as “women’s health.”

Birth control, as it is pushed by these people, is as much social engineering and eugenics as anything to do with women. Right up to the present day, dangerous chemical birth control, as well as equally dangerous methods such as the IUD, are pushed on women without regard to the consequences and without telling them that there are other, completely safe, methods of contraception.

The problem with the so-called barrier methods of birth control is that their monetary pay-off to organizations such as Planned Parenthood is relatively small or even nonexistent. It doesn’t require the expenditure of enormous amounts of federal dollars for people to simply go to the nearest pharmacy or Wal Mart and buy contraceptives off the shelves. Fitting someone with a diaphragm does require a doctor’s visit. But it is a one-shot deal.

Chemical birth control, however, requires repeated visits to medical personnel. Chemical birth control also costs a lot more than the greasy kid stuff you can buy off the shelves. Ironically, the pushers of chemical birth control are also the pushers of abortion on demand.

How do they justify this? They do it by talking about “birth control failure.” “Even the best birth control fails,” they tell us at the same time that they assure us that chemical birth control and all its health risks are a necessary evil. After all, they say, without the faintest blush of embarrassment, chemical birth control is the only “truly effective method” of birth control. However, they add, going in a circle, we need abortion as a “backup” throughout the span of pregnancy, right up to the day before delivery.

Let’s be clear about this. The greasy kid stuff works if you use it. You just have to use it.

The insanity of this whole paradigm slides right past most people, including parents. No one seems to consider that Planned Parenthood is in the schools, drumming up business for itself by pushing kids to be sexually active and telling them that they need to be “on the pill.” No one has stopped to consider that this has gone so far that a lot of parents’ first question when they learn that their young teenager is sleeping around is “are you ‘protected?’”

My question is, protected from what? Protected from the emotional damage of being reduced to meat to be sexually used? Protected from sexually transmitted diseases? Protected from the death-dealing short and long term sides effects of dosing their young bodies with artificial hormones?

Are they being protected from the risks of uterine perforations, blood clots, heart attacks and strokes that are a big part of the side effects of these things?

Are they being protected from getting breast cancer later in their lives? Who protects them from the chemotherapy and radiation that goes with that?

Are they being protected from being able to form genuine emotional commitments with young men?

What, exactly, are these young girls being protected from?

And why are we allowing the pushers of these drugs into our schools to sex educate our daughters to use them?

A current article in Vanity Fair raises disturbing questions about one of these dangerous birth control devices called the NuvaRing. Do you remember the NuvaRing? There were a lot of ads for it.

It was marketed as a freedom from the onerous requirement of taking a pill every day. The ads encouraged young women to just pop in a NuvaRing once each month and get their daily dose of artificial hormones the thoughtless way. The only trouble is that NuvaRing has turned out to have side effects that may require a number of not-so-convenient stays in the hospital and even funerals. Like every other form of chemical birth control, NuvaRing can be a killer.

Let me ask you this: If it was your daughter who died of a “massive, double pulmonary embolism” caused by this device, would you consider that “complication” an “acceptable risk” for “preventing unwanted pregnancy?”

When did this kind of catastrophic “complication” for a treatment that is being given to people who are not sick and who do not need it become “acceptable?” The fashionable — and stupid — answer is to juxtapose the statistics of complications of pregnancy and child birth with the complications of using chemical birth control. The unthinking and sheep-like public eats this bogus logic up with a spoon and allows their daughters to be sacrificed to the lie of it.

And it is a lie. It is a lie based on a totally fallacious assumption.

The fallacious assumption is that chemical birth control is the only way to prevent “unwanted pregnancy.” That is absolutely untrue. Chemical birth control is not the only way to prevent unwanted pregnancy. It’s just the most dangerous way.

This is a NuvaRing commercial. Notice that it does — due to legal requirements — give a list of warnings. It does not include a list of side effects, including the catastrophic side effects that have actually occurred. But anyone who is really listening and not brain-washed by our contraceptive culture, would run the other way.

YouTube Preview Image

And from Vanity Fair:

When 24-year-old Erika Langhart—talented, beautiful, bound for law school—died on Thanksgiving Day 2011, she became one of thousands of suspected victims of the birth-control device NuvaRing. Elite army athlete Megan Henry, who survived rampant blood clots in her 20s, is another. With major suits against NuvaRing’s manufacturer, Merck, headed for trial, Marie Brenner asks why, despite evidence of serious risk, a potentially lethal contraceptive remains on the market …

…  Karen was on the golf course when she saw Erika’s number on her cell phone. “We can’t wait to see you!” she said. Then, she would recall, “my world stopped. It was Sean, telling us that Erika had collapsed and that the E.M.T.’s were in the apartment.” In the ambulance Erika had two heart attacks, and she was semi-conscious by the time they reached Virginia Hospital Center. According to Karen, a doctor in the emergency room asked her over the phone: “Was your daughter using birth control?” Karen said, “Yes, NuvaRing.” He removed the device and said, “I thought so, because she’s having a pulmonary embolism.”

BOTTOM: FROM CUSTOM MEDICAL STOCK/NEWSCOM.
THE MAGIC RING In the latest NuvaRing commercial, an ebullient voice says, “It’s not another pill.”

Racing for the last flight to Washington, Rick and Karen Googled “double pulmonary embolism NuvaRing.” Dozens of results came up—“NuvaRing side effects,” “NuvaRing lawsuits.”

… Before Karen and Rick reached the hospital, Erika was placed on life support. She died on Thanksgiving Day. On the program for her daughter’s memorial service, Karen stated, “Cause of Passing: Massive, Double Pulmonary Embolism—a direct result of the NuvaRing.” She had entered, she told me, “another phase of life. How I wish I could change places with my daughter.” Then her voice broke. “I am living every parent’s nightmare.”

 

Surprise! Chemical Birth Control Linked to Breast Cancer

We’ve are living through a breast cancer plague. The numbers of women who are living and dying with this terrible disease keep multiplying.

Ask yourself, what has changed in the past 50 years that might have something to do with this?

If the wholesale pushing of chemical birth control on women doesn’t come to mind, I would be surprised. Women have been subjected to any and every form of dangerous birth control that comes along. Their monthly periods are suppressed with depo provera; they are exposed to dangerous, even fatal infections, perforations, etc with IUDs.

But the lying liars who make money off this keep on telling us that the sum total of “women’s health” is to give the female half of humanity ever increasing dosages of these things and then use abortion as a “back up” when it fails. It’s gotten to the point that young girls are being given the morning after pill (which is an even higher dose of the same hormones) in public schools.

A recent study quantifies the intuition that there is a connection between chemical birth control and breast cancer.

From National Catholic Register:

NEW DELHI — A new study of women in India reveals that having used birth-control pills elevates the risk of developing breast cancer nearly tenfold, and having had an abortion increases their risk of breast cancer more than sixfold.

The study, published in the most recent issue of the Indian Journal of Cancer, matched 320 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer with 320 healthy women of similar age, economic and social status and medical background, and it found that “the risk of breast cancer was 9.50 times higher in women having a history of consumption of oral contraceptive pills.”

Doctors at the Department of Gastroenterology and Human Nutrition Unit at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in New Delhi conducted the study to investigate the association of various reproductive factors with breast cancer.

“We found long-term use of oral contraceptive pills (OCP) higher among those suffering from breast cancer, 11.9%, compared to healthy individuals, 1.2%,” Dr. Umesh Kapil, a lead author of the study told the Times of India. Breast cancer is caused by repeated exposure of cells to circulating ovarian hormones, he explained, and long-term use of birth-control pills, which contain estrogen and progesterone, may contribute to the elevated risk.

“The relationship between contraceptive use and occurrence of breast cancer is not known,” Dr. G. K. Rath, the head of Bhim Rao Ambedkar Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, told the Times of India in the wake of the study. “But there is enough evidence to show the hormonal imbalance caused by them, increasing the risk. Early menarche, late marriage and childbirth and abortions are important factors.”

The risk associated with oral-contraceptive use in the study was higher than all the other known risk factors examined, except a lack of breastfeeding. Women who breastfed fewer than 12 months had a 14.9 times higher risk of getting breast cancer than women who breastfed longer than 12 months.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/study-birth-control-pill-and-abortion-spike-breast-cancer-risk?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2014-01-8%2008:35:01#ixzz2ppObt5Rx

 

2013 Favs: Massachusetts Schools Put Transgendereds in Restrooms, on Sports Teams of Their Choice

Massachusetts public schools have issued guidelines to require their public schools — get ready for this — from kindergarten to 12th grade to permit “transgendered” children to use the restroom of whatever gender the child decides they are.

In some schools, this would allow boys as old as 14 in public school bathrooms with girls as young as 5.

Now I ask you, what could possibly go wrong?

These guidelines also put school personnel in the position of raising the question with small children what gender they believe themselves to be. School personnel will be asking small children whether they are a a boy or a girl, with the concomitant implication that the teacher doesn’t know. I think that action alone, coming as it does from an authority figured and directed as it will be to very young children, has the potential to harm young children.

The new guidelines require schools to allow boys to play on girl’s athletic teams (and vice versa) if they decide that they feel like being a girl that season. I predict that once schools get over the shock, they will see that even a mediocre male athlete would be an all-star on a girl’s sports team and that all he has to do to play on that team is say he’s a girl for the duration of the season. However, instead of giving one girl’s team a winning edge over the others, this is bound to spread and soon reach the point that real girls (the ones with double x chromosomes) can no longer compete on their own teams.

The upshot of all this will almost certainly be increased sexual confusion on the part of young children and another round of the war on girls. It will make it even more difficult for parents to raise their children to be productive adults who are capable of marrying, having children of their own and raising them in stable homes.

It seems that providing a healthy environment in which we can raise children so that they can become productive and stable adults is the exact opposite of what the decision makers in our society are about. Based on their consistent actions I can only come to the conclusion that destroying our children is more in line with their goals.

As usual, all this began with a well-meaning but bad law which educators with an agenda have taken to its illogical conclusion.

I am very glad that I homeschooled my children. If it is at all possible for you to do the same, I would strongly advise you to consider it.

You can read the Massachusetts’s Public Schools Guidelines for Nondiscrimination on Gender Identity here.  The LifeSite News article describing this latest bit of educational “reform” says in part:

BOSTON, February 19, 2013, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Massachusetts Commissioner of Education Mitchell Chester has issued orders to the state’s K-12 public schools requiring them to permit “transgender” boys and girls to use the opposite sex’s locker rooms, bathrooms, and changing facilities as long as they claim to identify with that gender.

Many elementary schools in smaller Massachusetts towns include children from kindergarten through eighth grade, making it possible for boys as old as 14 to share toilet facilities with girls as young as five.

Under Chester’s leadership, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) released an 11-page document on Friday outlining this and other new guidelines giving “transgender” students special status and privileges in Massachusetts schools. Some family advocates are calling the document, which was prepared with assistance from homosexual and transgender advocacy groups, “the most thorough, invasive, and radical transgender initiative ever seen on a statewide level.”

The policy does not require a doctor’s note or even parental permission for a child to switch sexes in the eyes of Massachusetts schools. Only the student’s word is needed: If a boy says he’s a girl, as far as the schools are concerned, he’s a girl.

“The responsibility for determining a student’s gender identity rests with the student,” the statement says. “A school should accept a student’s assertion of his or her gender identity when there is … ‘evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held as part of a person’s core identity.’” That evidence, according to the document, can be as simple as a statement given by a friend.

That means, according to the newly issued school policies, that boys who say they identify as girls must be addressed by the feminine pronoun and be listed as girls on official transcripts.

They must also be allowed access to girls’ facilities and be allowed to play on girls’ athletic and club teams. The same is true for girls who say they are boys.

The document was issued to clarify the schools’ obligations in light of “An Act Relative to Gender Identity,” a law that went into effect last July. That bill amended Massachusetts law “to establish that no person shall be excluded from or discriminated against in admission to a public school of any town, or in obtaining the advantages, privileges and courses of study of such public school on account of gender identity.”

However, Brian Camenker, spokesman for government watchdog group MassResistance, told LifeSiteNews the DESE’s new directives go far beyond what the law requires.

Camenker pointed out that the only requirement the Gender Identity bill imposed on schools was to add “gender identity” to their non-discrimination policies, alongside other protected groups such as religious or ethnic minorities. Under the DESE’s policy, however, self-identified transgendered students will have more rights than other students, including the right to access bathroom and changing facilities of the opposite sex and play on the opposite sex’s sports teams.

Not only that, but students who object may be subject to punishment under the state’s new “anti-bullying” law, which, like the new school policy, was written with the help of homosexual and transgender activist groups.

Under that law, any outwardly negative reaction against transgenderism can now be considered bullying, and subject to discipline and punishment, according to Camenker. (Read more here.)

2013 Favs: The War on Girls: Sterilize Your Teen-Aged Daughter for Free (and without your consent)

I’ve been aware of this for several months. I’ve wanted to blog about it, but the Democrats and the Republicans have taken up sooooo much space with their shenanigans that I kept putting it back.

Today is the day.

Did you know that the “women’s health” advocates in our government are making sterilization available to teen-aged girls without parental consent?

I could rant about the obvious hypocrisy in this. I could also talk about the hundred-year history of eugenic sterilizations and manipulations of women’s bodies that continues into the present. In fact, I AM going to do both those things. For a starter, check out another of today’s posts here.

But for today, I think I’ll let the facts speak for themselves. This is an excerpt of a CNS article talking about the phenomena of government-sponsored sterilizations for teen-aged girls without parental consent. 

Oh, and one more tiny thing: This is one of the things that the HHS Mandate would force the Catholic Church and all Christian ministries to pay for. 

I’ll talk about this more in the future. Stay tuned. Here’s the article:

Washington D.C., Sep 25, 2012 / 04:06 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Minor children on their parents’ health care plans will have free coverage of sterilization and contraception, including abortion-causing drugs, under the controversial HHS mandate – and depending on the state, they can obtain access without parental consent.

Matt Bowman, senior counsel for the religious liberty legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, said the mandate “tramples parental rights” because it requires them to “pay for and sponsor coverage of abortifacients, sterilization, contraception and education in favor of the same for their own children.”

The Department of Health and Human Services ruled in January 2012 that most employers who have 50 or more employees must provide the coverage as “preventive care” for “all women with reproductive capacity.”

The mandate also requires the coverage for beneficiaries, including minors, on the affected health plans, Bowman told CNA Sept. 20. That means that a minor on her parents’ plan could be sterilized if she finds a doctor willing to perform the procedure.

“She can be sterilized at no cost,” Bowman stated. “Whether her parents will know and/or consent might differ by state. But the Guttmacher Institute and other abortion advocates explicitly advocated for this mandated coverage of minors so that access without parental involvement might be able to increase.”

The Guttmacher Institute, in a Sept. 1 briefing on state policies, said that an increase in minors’ access to reproductive health care over the last 30 years shows a broader recognition that “while parental involvement in minors’ health care decisions is desirable, many minors will not avail themselves of important services if they are forced to involve their parents.”

The institute, the former research arm of abortion provider Planned Parenthood, said that 26 states and the District of Columbia allow all minors 12 years and older to consent to contraceptive services. At least one state, Oregon, allows 15-year-olds to consent to sterilization. (Read more here.)

2013 Favs: Message to Martin Bashir: Words Hurt

FirefoxScreenSnapz055 620x337

I am confused.

I do not understand the depth of hatred that so many people with microphones and word processors evidently feel toward Sarah Palin.

Many of them disagree with her opinions. I disagree with quite a few of her opinions.

But I don’t feel any desire to use this blog to call her names or degrade her as a human being or (God forbid) say things that would incite others to harm her in any way.

Sarah Palin seems to drive a certain segment of the trendy left right past any vestige of their civility and on into barbaric name-calling and sexist word violence that can only be described as cloaked pornography.

A case in point is the comments by MSNBC host Martin Bashir. Pretending to be talking about slavery, Mr Bashir went on to describe things that he said (I imagine this is true, btw) came from an old journal describing the treatment of slaves.

References to historic sources aside, the only times I have heard people describe that sort of treatment at the hands of other people in today’s world was gang rape victims describing the degrading, dehumanizing things done to them by their attackers. Since Mr Bashir is presumably far better acquainted with the twenty-first century than the eighteenth, I assume that he knows this.

He ended this disgusting recital by announcing that Governor Palin deserved the same treatment.

As always happens with these things, Mr Bashir has now issued an apology, which, of course, does nothing to ameliorate the harm he’s done, not only to Governor Palin, but to women everywhere.

I, for one, am tired of this.

Words hurt.

It would have been possible to discuss the remarks made by Governor Palin without calling her any names at all. In fact, the one thing Mr Bashir did not do was give me or any other viewer a reason to think that what the Governor had said was inaccurate. He never discussed that at all.

Instead, he went off immediately into a vicious string of names and then launched onto his history lesson and ended with the judgement that Sarah Palin deserved the same brutal treatment he had just described.

The thing which he, in my opinion, pretended had offended him was that the Governor used the word slavery in her discussion, as in the well-known and commonly-used phrase “economic slavery.”

Now, you may believe that Mr Bashir was so offended by the word “slavery” used in an economic context that he temporarily lost his senses. But even if that is true, it does not excuse what he said. Only insanity to the point of an active delusional psychosis in which he did not know what he was doing would excuse calling for any other person to be treated the way he called for Governor Palin to be treated, and that degree of mental illness would certainly disqualify him from his position.

Mr Bashir is a star. He is a highly-paid professional. There is, or there should be, quite a bit of responsibility in that. If he’s unable to control himself when he hears words like “slavery,” then he may be too emotionally labile for his position.

No professional newsperson who is the voice of a worldwide news organization should be calling for violence of any sort, much less violence of this type, against those they claim to cover. They should not be calling the people whose lives they report names.

What level of journalism is this that Mr Bashir operates from that he can go on the air and behave in this manner toward a woman who is the former governor of one of the fifty states, a former nominee for the Vice Presidency of the United States, and the mother of five children?

What has Sarah Palin done, besides have opinions that some people disagree with and express those opinions strongly, that merits such hatred?

It has reached the point that I know that I’m going to be called a few names for saying this; which is precisely why I am saying it.

No one deserves this kind of treatment. Disagree with her positions. That is fine.

But stop trashing her as a human being, and stop singling out prominent women for pornographic viciousness.

2013 Favs: The War on Girls: Ob-Gyns Ignore Health Risks to Push IUDS, Hormonal Implants on Teen Girls

Last week in The War on Girls: NYC Schools Pushing Plan B on Young Girls I wrote about NYC’s outrageous policy of pushing the morning after pill on teen-aged girls through the schools.

This week’s story is from a September 26 CNS article detailing an even more outrageous update to the guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to make dangerous IUDs and hormonal implants the “first-line contraceptive options” for teen-aged girls, which should be “discussed at each doctor’s visit.” The updated guidelines recommend that doctors suggest these “longer term alternatives” that “can be left inserted inside a woman’s body and left in place for several years.”

I am seriously beginning to question if the health and well-being of girls is of any concern to the population control people. Also, just who is in charge of our various medical associations? It appears that social agendas take precedent over patient care with these groups, at least when the patient in question is a girl.

According to Dr Bill Toffler, professor of family medicine at Oregon Health and Science University, the devices this new update recommends in the Ob-Gyn guidelines are

“… typically expensive, costing hundreds of dollars, although under the Affordable Care Act, minors will have access to IUDs and other contraceptives at no cost, and in some states will be able to receive them without parental consent.

“The devices also release powerful hormones within the body and can lead to a significant risk of infection, especially during the early stages,” he said.

“Essentially, you’re putting a foreign body into a normally sterile cavity,” he explained.

“In addition, one in every 1000 women who use an IUD will have their uterus perforated, potentially putting their future fertility at risk,” he said.

Toffler warned that the promoters of the new guidelines “have thrown these concerns under the bus” in their zeal to reduce teenage pregnancy rates.

However, their attempts to do so may actually contribute to teenagers having “less inhibition” about sex and engaging in increasing levels of risky behavior, he said.

“People may be falsely reassured,” he explained, noting that with the average teenage relationship lasting only three months, many young people are already involved in numerous “fleeting” sexual relationships.

In addition, Toffler said, the promotions of IUDs are misleading, and women are not properly informed about how they function.

He explained that it is an undisputed fact that “one of the ways they work is to interfere with implantation,” thus ending the life of an already-created human embryo.

Some women who think they are simply using a preventive form of contraception may not realize that the device is also an abortion-inducing agent, he observed.

Toffler also said that he has had personal experience with women who became pregnant while using IUDs, posing a risk in removing the device. Such situations are also associated with higher proportions of ectopic pregnancies, which occur outside the womb and can be life-threatening for the mother. (Read more here.)


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X