How the Left Protests vs the Way the Right Protests

Compare this from the leftist protests at the recent Toronto G20 meeting:



to this Tea Party protest:



No destruction, no violence, just peaceful protest, getting people registered to vote & providing them with copies of the US Constitution so they know how our government is actually supposed to work.

& when violence does break out at a Tea Party Rally, as this news report shows, it is union activists, not the Tea Party Rally participants that create the violence:

Finally, here is Steve Crowder's take on the alledged violence by those on the right:

The Recent Belgian Church Raids - Reaping the Fruit of Dissent

Fr. Euteneuer makes an excellent point about the recent police raid in Belgium. I stand with Fr. Euteneuer & Papa Benedetto (Pope calls Belgian police Church raids "deplorable") in deploring how they were carried out. But I also agree with Fr. Euteneuer's assessment that God could be using this as a chastisement for the Catholic Church in Belgium. what has been going on there shows how far things have drifted from the era of Cardinal Désiré-Joseph Mercier & when Archbishop Sheen studied at theCatholic University of Louvain.

Belgian Church Raids Compared to Babylonian Chastisement

By Hilary White
BRUSSELS, June 28, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A police raid, the detaining of bishops and the confiscation of files on priestly sexual abuse can be seen as a form of chastisement for decades of open dissent from Catholic teaching by Church authorities in Belgium, a prominent pro-life leader has said.
Brussels police raided the offices of the Brussels Archdiocese on Thursday, searched the cathedral and seized computers and files from the residences of both the current archbishop of Brussels and Cardinal Godfreed Daneels who retired as the head of the Belgian church in January. Police said the raids, conducted while bishops were meeting in the building, were in connection with allegations of sex abuse by clergy and the Belgian hierarchy’s long history of cover-ups.
Fr. Tom Euteneuer, author and head of Human Life International (HLI) told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) that he stands with the pope and condemns unconditionally the actions of police as “a massive violation of confidentiality” of victims who had confided in Church authorities, and a “brutal police action” against the Church.
At the same time, however, he pointed to the years of public antagonism by Belgium’s Catholic leadership to the Church’s sexual moral teaching that furnished the heavily secularist government with the excuse needed for the attack.
“How is it possible,” Fr. Euteneuer said, “to see this as anything but retribution for the sins of a church that has for the past four decades been in a state of continuous public dissent?”
The raids were denounced by Pope Benedict XVI who decried the “surprising and deplorable manner in which searches were carried out.” Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican’s Cardinal Secretary of State, launched a formal protest to the Belgian ambassador to the Holy See saying, “there are not precedents - not even under the old Communist regimes” for such treatment of the Church by secular authorities.
Fr. Euteneuer said that, “God sometimes allows the actions of pagans to punish and correct the abuses of His beloved people. Whatever the interpretation of the aggressive action of the police, let’s just take it as a wake-up call for a return to orthodoxy and fidelity to Christ.”
On Thursday, police burst into the cathedral of Mechelen-Brussels searching even the crypt where past bishops are buried. They confiscated 450 files containing reports of sexual offences by clergy that had already been submitted to an internal Church investigation committee. Police sealed off the building where bishops were holding a meeting, detaining them for several hours and confiscating their mobile phones.
Pope Benedict XVI, in a message to the recently appointed archbishop of Brussels, Andre-Mutien Leonard, asked authorities to respect the rights of victims, whose statements, given in confidence to the Church’s independent investigation committee, were also seized.
The Belgian bishops have responded to the raids by shutting the committee down. Its chairman, child psychiatrist Peter Adriaenssens, said that Belgian authorities had betrayed the trust of nearly 500 victims who had made complaints over the past two months. He blamed state prosecutors for pursuing victims too traumatized to speak to police. “We were bait,” he said.
Cardinal Danneels, who has long been a leading light of the Catholic Church’s left-liberal “progressivist” wing in Europe, was said to be “seriously shocked” by the police’s actions. A spokesman said “I can assure you that the cardinal had envisioned his retirement very differently.”
Danneels, for decades a major European voice of opposition to the Catholic teaching on artificial contraception and homosexuality, was the close colleague and protector of Bishop Roger Vangheluwe of Bruges. Vangheluwe resigned in April after admitting to having sexually abused boys, including his own nephew, before and throughout his time as a bishop. Following these revelations the Church established the independent commission which was immediately flooded with hundreds of complaints of sexual abuse by priests.
A long-time favourite of the world’s secular media, Danneels figured prominently in an article, published on the same day as the raids, detailing opposition to efforts by parents to stop a sexually explicit “catechism text” written and approved by Belgian Catholic authorities for use by children and teens.
The text includes a drawing of a naked infant girl, captioned to show her saying that she enjoyed having sex acts being performed on her and watching her parents have sex. Politician and author Alexandra Colen quoted a letter she had sent to Danneels in 1997 protesting the text that she said, “breeds pedophiles.” She said that when she went public in her fight against the text, she was joined by hundreds of parents who revealed more explicit sex practices being taught to children in Catholic schools around the country.
At the news website Brussels Journal, Colen said that in response to protests against the text, Danneels launched a media campaign vilifying Colen and other parents. Colen points to the close relationship between Danneels and Vangheluwe, who was the supervising bishop of the Catholic University of Leuven and the Seminary of Bruges where the text was written and edited.
She writes that, given the revelations about Vangheluwe, “Today this case, that dates from 12 years ago, assumes a new and ominous significance.”
See LifeSiteNews.com’s Special Report:
Roots of Sexual Abuse in the Church: Homosexuality, Dissent and Modernism

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2002/jun/020618a.html

More Evidence the Catholic Church Teaching in IVF, Contraception & Abortion Are Right

This disaster is simply the end result of a whole chain of events, each building on the last, as our society moved step by step away from God's ways.

1 of the comments is the article is that this shows how children have become a commodity, as Wesley Smith says in his blog "embryos treated as a mere thing". The original article backs that up when it says "The woman who owned the embryos". Owned, that is a term you use with a car, a house, a pet, not a fellow human being. Well, at least not since the days when slavery was legal here in the USA.

If this fact doesn't prove that the comparison of abortion to slavery is a valid one, than I have to suspect that the person who rejects it would gladly own slaves.

The fact that the Center was fined only $3000 for the death of several unborn children also shows how cheaply we hold life in our society.

& once again shows us how prophetic Pope Paul was when he wrote Humanae Vitae .

Woman Kills Wrongly-Implanted Embryos with Morning-After Pill

By Peter J. Smith
HARTFORD, Connecticut, June 29, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a disastrous chain of events, a set of “wanted” embryos quickly became “unwanted” after an artificially impregnated women was informed by her fertility clinic that they had implanted the embryos of another woman by the same name instead.
The woman’s solution was to take the morning-after pill (which, ironically, pro-abortion forces insist is simply a form contraception and cannot cause an abortion) and abort the nascent life within her.
The Associated Press reports that the Center for Advanced Reproductive Services at the University of Connecticut Health Center has agreed to pay a $ 3,000 fine over the incident, which took place last April, according to state health records.
Apparently, a lab technician had taken out a batch of human embryos from the storage freezer without following proper procedure. She only matched the last name, but forgot to crosscheck with the last four digits of the woman’s social security number and the medical record number.
The lab technician discovered the error a day later – but by then it was too late. The woman had already been implanted with another client’s embryos, which had been on ice for approximately four years.
After being told about the error one hour after having the embryos implanted within her, the woman then decided she did not want to carry someone else’s baby, and so took the morning-after pill.
Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith commented on his blog about the event, saying it illustrates not only how children have come to be treated as a commodity through in vitro fertilization, but also how this process can sometimes snare “would-be birth and biological parents … in terrible, heart wrenching circumstances.”
The center has insisted that the mix-up is the first ever in their 24-year history, calling it “important and emotionally difficult for patients and center alike.”
Smith, however, pointed out that mix-ups have happened before at IVF clinics – although in at least one extraordinary case the birth mother made a painful, but life-affirming choice. Sean and Carolyn Savage of Ohio found out last year that their IVF clinic had transferred the wrong embryos. The Savages, however, refused to abort on account of their pro-life religious beliefs, and arranged to hand over the baby to his biological parents shortly after the birth.
“When the mistake was discovered in that case, the birth mother and her husband chose life for someone else’s baby,” remarked Smith. “Which choice reflects unconditional love?”
Carolyn Savage told Meredith Vieira of the TODAY Show back in September that the hardest experience would be the delivery of the child, where she would only have a chance to say “hello” and “goodbye.”
“Of course, we will wonder about this child every day for the rest of our lives,” she added. “We just want to know he’s healthy and happy.”
A follow-up with the TODAY Show in May, revealed that the baby Carolyn Savage carried to term was born Logan Morell, now approximately 8 months old. The Savages and the Morells have become friends through the painful experience. However the Savages declined to appear on the TODAY Show, saying that the months following Logan’s birth have been much more difficult for them to deal with than they expected, but they hope to write about their experiences in a book for 2011.

Algore: This Song's for You

Jill Stanek Takes on the DBQ Media

When Jill Stanek found out about the vandalism that happenned to my home, including the way the TH covered it, she asked me for some info so she could do a post on it for her blog. I was very glad to help, not to draw attention to myself, but because the Main Stream Media regularly ignores most of the attacks on Pro-lifers while playing up even the smallest attack on pro-aborts. I cooperated for all those Pro-lifers whose stories the MSM has ignored over the years.

Jill Stanek contacted Brian Cooper to ask him about the question he asked me "Wouldn't you think a bona fide pro-choice vandal would know how to spell abortion?" In her post (Newspaper editor questions whether pro-aborts are to blame for misspelled pro-abortion graffiti) she talks about how she saw the question he asked me. Then she shares the response she got when she contacted Brian Cooper to ask him about it (notice the way he treats her in how he responds):

"The overriding conclusion to draw from Cooper's rhetorical question is that "bona fide" pro-aborts can't be stupid.
There are thus 3 conspiracy theories Cooper was implying:
1. The vandal spray painting the misspelled graffiti was in actuality a covert but stupid pro-lifer.
2. The vandal spray painting the misspelled graffiti was in actuality a covert pro-lifer attempting to make pro-aborts look stupid.
2. The vandal spray painting the misspelled graffiti was not pro-life or pro-abortion at all but just a simple street vandal who wanted people to think s/he was pro-abortion.
In fact, I could only surmise Conspiracy Theories #1 and 2 until Cooper (pictured right) told me #3 by phone this morning.
"I'm not surprised you can't think of any other conclusion," he said, since I had identified myself as a pro-life blogger. "Not everyone is fervently pro-choice or pro-life. This could have been someone who doesn't have any opinion on it and wanted to vandalize but seem that someone else was doing it."
Well that makes total sense. A vandal into graffiti purely for the joy of it, uninvolved in the abortion battle either way, would know enough to connect a sign opposing Planned Parenthood with "aboration" and "baby killers" and decide to spray paint about it to somehow implicate pro-aborts because... Well, again, I can only come up with the fact the graffiti vandal was either #1 or #2."

Then she goes on to look at the actually coverage when it finally shows up in print. Looking at the headline & 1st paragraph she comes to the conclusion that there is clear bias in how it was written. She wonders if they are saying "So Troupe could have been in actuality drawing wild conclusions or hallucinating?" I don't think I am drawing wild conclusions or hallucinating, esp since I have pictures to prove otherwise.

I agree with what Jill Stanek said: "These journalists are either utterly biased or totally void of common sense and simple intelligence." With heavy emphasis on the "utterly biased".

I have no idea if Brian Cooper has seen the piece she wrote, or is aware of the national attention his dismissal of what happenned has drawn.* But I hope he is, so that when the next DBQ area Pro-lifer falls victim to vandalism & harrassment like me, he won't be so ready to merely blow it off & make excuses for not covering it. Instead I hope he will give it the same coverage he would give to every attack done to Planned Parenthood or pro-aborts.

________________

You can go to my post Update on the Vandalism for more pictures besides those Jill Stanek used in her story. The post also has links to my 1st 2 posts on the incident.

*This post was also ended up on Newsbusters website: Newspaper Editor Questions Whether Pro-Aborts Are to Blame for Misspelled Pro-Abortion Graffiti. & as for Jill Stanek, she is very well known on all sides of the Pro-life debate (Who Do They Think I Am?) She has drawn Keith Olberman's wrath. & villianized by NARAL to raise money for their organization.

Sadly, Way Too True

Umbert the Unborn

How the "Culture of Death" Uses Lies, Half-Truths & False Assumptions to Push Its Racist Abortion Agenda

Creative Math: Abortion Activists and Maternal Health

By Andrea Mrozek, Manager of Research and Communications, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada
June 25, 2010 (IMFC) - Is abortion a necessary part of the maternal health initiative? Would funding abortion in the developing world really save 70,000 mothers’ lives annually?
These are questions the media are not asking as the number has been repeated in news reports across the country and internationally. The 70,000 figure is used to show that excluding abortion from a maternal health package means ideology is trumping sound medical care at the expense of women’s lives in the developing world.
The reality, however, is quite the opposite insofar as the 70,000 is based on ideology as much as science. A review of how the World Health Organization comes to the number 70,000 for maternal deaths due to abortion reveals faulty methodology based on numerous debatable assumptions and definitions of “safe” and “unsafe” abortion that don’t hold water, even with some abortion providers.
SHOW ME THE DATA
Hard data on abortion in the developing world understandably doesn’t exist. In fact, World Health Organization reports make it clear that the data is very difficult to find. They caution as a result that their numbers are estimates:
“Abortion statistics are notoriously incomplete… As there are no feasible data collection methods that can reliably reflect the overall burden of unsafe abortion, one is left to work with incomplete information on incidence and mortality from community studies or hospitals…This is then adjusted to correct for misreporting and under-reporting…” [1]
ASSUMPTIONS LAYERED ON ASSUMPTIONS
That abortion is always under-reported is the underlying assumption behind the WHO's “Unsafe abortion” series of reports. This is, however, an opinion and only a cursory defence of this opinion is offered. [2] Given cultural, religious and ideological stigma attached to abortion that the WHO reports do readily acknowledge, [3] it’s just as likely that fewer women would resort to abortion particularly where modern medical care is absent.
Another assumption is that local data can be used as representative of the national statistics. [4] But would we take medical trends in Barrie, Ontario, for example, to be representative of the country at large?
A third assumption is that hospital births, miscarriages and abortions in the developing world can be used as a proxy for those outside the hospital. Again, this doesn’t hold water. In Canada, births that occur in hospitals and miscarriages (or abortions that result in a hospital admission) do not correlate and vary significantly by region. [5]
Every data point is based on multiple assumptions due to the lack of concrete data.
DEFINING SAFE VERSUS UNSAFE ABORTION
A 2009 briefing report published by the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), a pro-life research group dedicated to monitoring the United Nations, clarifies that safe versus unsafe abortion is selectively defined by some WHO articles. “A 2007 article co-sponsored by WHO, (allows) for a purely legal definition of unsafe abortion as ‘abortions in countries with restrictive abortion laws.’” [6]
C-FAM further recounts how at the 2007 Women Deliver conference in London even medical professionals were troubled by how “unsafe abortion” was defined. “During a presentation of a paper estimating the worldwide number of ‘unsafe’ abortions, a Marie Stopes International representative from a clinic performing abortions in a country where it is illegal rose in indignation and said, ‘By your definitions, are you saying that all the abortions performed in my clinic are unsafe?’ The presenter did not answer her question.” [7]
The lack of data and disagreement over the data, combined with an understanding of how the public might perceive the confusion—also how funding might be affected—has led some abortion-rights activists to call for a numbers publication ban prior to reaching agreement. C-FAM reported on June 23: “Ann Starrs, co-founder and president of the abortion advocacy organization Family Care International (FCI), told a roomful of scientists to ‘lock all the academics in a black box and have them come out with a consensus set of numbers’ or ‘at least hide that there is disagreement’ and ‘infighting.’ [8]
The obvious problem is that experts don’t actually agree. When The Lancet published new—different from the WHO data and lower—maternal mortality statistics in April, maternal health activists asked if they would delay the data release until after funds were raised. [9]
A Lancet editor by the name of Richard Horton explained what happened: “Even before the paper by Hogan et al was submitted to us, we were invited to ‘delay’ or ‘hold’ publication.” He went on: “The justification for this concern was several fold: potential political damage to maternal advocacy campaigns; confusion among countries, policymakers, and the media, given the difference between this maternal mortality estimate and the previous UN number; undermining progress on global commitments to maternal health; and the risk of an unproductive academic debate while women continued to die.” [10]
POLICY RAMIFICATIONS
So what’s the point of this discussion? Any maternal deaths as a result of abortion are an obvious tragedy. But the implications for this one number in the maternal health debate are even broader.
Where comparative benchmarks are necessary, these numbers provide a serious obstacle to knowing how and when maternal health actually improves. Indeed, the guestimate of 70,000 remains constant for WHO researchers. The fourth edition of WHO’s Unsafe Abortion says there are 68,000 maternal deaths in 2000, the fifth edition says the number is between 65,000 and 70,000 in 2003. [11]
Where policy makers are predisposed to viewing legal abortion as safe and illegal abortion as unsafe, this treads closely to an attempt to change national laws—something a maternal aid mandate should not do because it would be an obvious infringement on national sovereignty. On this note, many of those advocating for abortion to be included in this maternal health mandate have a vision to liberalize other sovereign countries’ abortion laws. [12]
Where numbers are not currently known, guestimates should not be taken or reported as hard fact.
Finally, in the maternal health debate, ideology runs rampant and is not limited to the pro-life side.
The 70,000 is more ideology than math and should be treated as such. In this contentious debate, when economic resources are limited, a solution lies in a general improvement in medical care in the developing world, not with abortion provision. Any government would be wise to stay away from the “A word,” working instead to provide basic medical necessities as a main thrust of charitable action in the developing world.
Endnotes
[1] Ahman, E., Shah, I. (2004). Unsafe abortion: Global and regional estimates of the incidence of unsafe abortion and associated mortality in 2000, fourth edition. Geneva: World Health Organization, p. 6.

[2] The following paragraph includes study references, including one that surveyed American women between 1976 and 1988, but also an embedded opinion that abortion is cross-culturally prevalent without exception. It is clear the researchers don’t view this as an opinion, but where no data exists to verify, it remains fair to call it such.
“Whether legal or illegal, induced abortion is generally stigmatized and frequently censured by religious teaching. Women are often reluctant to admit to an induced abortion, especially when it is illegal. Surveys show that under-reporting occurs even where abortion is legal. When abortions are clandestine they may not be reported at all or reported as spontaneous abortion (miscarriage).The language used to describe induced abortion reflects this ambivalence: terms include induced miscarriage (fausse couche provoquée), menstrual regulation, or “regulation of a delayed or suspended” menstruation. It is therefore not surprising that unsafe abortion is one of the most difficult indicators to measure.” Unsafe abortion (2004), p. 6.

[3] “Whether legal or illegal, induced abortion is generally stigmatized and frequently censured by religious teaching or ideologies. Women are often reluctant to admit to having had an induced abortion, especially when it is illegal.” Ahman, E., Shah, I. (2007). Unsafe abortion: Global and regional estimates of the incidence of unsafe abortion and associated mortality in 2003, fifth edition. Geneva: World Health Organization, p. 27.

[4] “It is assumed that subnational data can be extrapolated to country level with adjustments.” Unsafe abortion (2007), p. 28.

[5] Ibid. In effect, this assumption suggests that the per cent of live births in hospitals is equal to the per cent of miscarriages and abortions that end up in hospital. To give an example, if researchers knew that 1000 babies were born in a particular region in a particular year, but only 750 of the births were in a hospital, that would mean one quarter of births occur outside hospitals. They therefore assume that if 150 women are admitted to hospital due to spontaneous or induced abortion, one third of that number again, a 25 per cent of the total, occur outside the healthcare system, meaning 200 total spontaneous or induced abortions. Researchers also rely on the fact that in the hospital the cause of the abortion, natural or induced, is more likely to be known and apply this to non-hospital abortions, spontaneous or induced. These assumptions are then connected with the number of women who die in the perinatal period, and further linked to death the result of abortion.

[6] Harrison, D. (2009, May 1). Removing the roadblocks from achieving MDG 5 by improving the data on maternal mortality. New York: Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, p. 3.

[7] Ibid, p. 4.

[8] Yoshihara, S. (2010, June 3). Researchers Asked to Hide Scientific Debate over Maternal Deaths. Retrieved online at http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1641/pub_detail.asp

[9] Associated Press. (2010, April 14). Lancet: Sharp drop in maternal deaths worldwide. Retrieved online at http://www.physorg.com/news190462124.html [10] Horton, R. (2010, April

10). Maternal mortality: surprise, hope, and urgent action. London: The Lancet.

[11] Unsafe abortions (2007), p. 5 and Unsafe abortions (2004), abstract.

[12] “Specifically, many United Nations (UN) agencies and non-governmental organizations pressure decision makers to liberalize abortion laws, promising everything from a decrease in maternal mortality to an increase in the well being of women if such laws are put into effect.” Harrison, (2009), p. 2.

The Dirty Secret They Don't Want You to Know

How "The Pill" works as an Abortifacient

Molto Pazzo, But for the "Culture of Death" Mindset, Yes Normal

Pope Paul VI warned us about contraception & the damage it would do to our culture. Fr. Paul Marx OSB, founder of HLI warned us of the connection between abortion & contraception. Fr. Marx pointed out time after time how contraception openned the door to abortion.

The "culture of death" doesn't the truth about contraception to get out. Why would it want to advertise how well it spreads death & destruction to those who use it. Normally, I am not a big fan of those latenight ads from law firms looking for people to sue drug companies etc. But in 1 case, they are actually doing some good. I am refering to those firms that are looking for people to sue Bayer because of Yaz/Yasmin's side effects that are talked about below. Obviously I am not endorsing the greed that is the real reason behind many of these lawsuits. But the message it tells about covering up the truth about Yaz may get some people who otherwise might not be aware of the reality of how dangerous to women the Pill in its various forms really is. & that isn't even talking about the unknown number of unborn babies that the Pill caused to be aborted.

“Crazy is the New Normal”?
by Jenn Giroux

Who would have ever guessed that contraception would move center stage in the women’s health and the political arena in 2010? Last week the New York Post reported that a “Wicked” actress sued Bayer pharmaceutical company claiming the popular birth control Yaz caused her to have a stroke at age 27. According to the US Drug Watchdog the serious side effects of birth control pills such as Yaz and Yasmin are potentially putting millions of women at risk for stroke, heart attack and even death. Also woman who have used the pill are now showing up in their 30’s with breast cancer (prior to the pill breast cancer was a post-menopausal women’s disease). Next time you are at the pharmacy ask for the insert information inside the very box that is provided to the consumer when they purchase a contraceptive. On NuvaRing’s website (a common contraceptive) risks associated with the drug include blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, high blood pressure, heart disease, gallbladder disease, liver tumors, and cancer of the reproductive organs and breasts.
How many doctors are telling women who go in for contraceptives these stunning statistics? Women who use hormonal contraceptives for a minimum of 4 years prior to their first full term pregnancy have a 52% higher risk of developing breast cancer (Mayo Clinic Proceedings). Women who use a hormonal contraceptive for more then 5 yrs are 4 times more likely to develop cervical cancer (International Agency of Research on Cancer). Instead many doctors convince married and single woman to go on contraceptives when they go into the office.
Natural Family Planning (NFP) is a highly reliable form of not only spacing children but helping couples to conceive. Recent studies have shown it to be 99% effective. It’s amazing more doctors aren’t encouraging their patients to effectively use NFP that has no risks associated.
Now—-as the undeniable medical evidence mounts which confirms the damage contraceptives have and continue to do to women’s health one may ask why for years mainstream and even pro-life organizations have ignored this. In addition, it has been revealed that our elected official are trying to force our tax dollars to pay for birth control under “preventative” medicine that tax payers and insurers will be forced to pay under the Affordable Care Act. It is time that every pro-life organization stands up and resist with all our might. Not only are these contraceptives damaging to women’s health, but these class A-1 carcinogens are also causing chemical abortions (in excess of 250 million since the 1960′s). For every U.S. child born an estimated 2 children are killed in the womb from surgical abortion and abortifacient contraceptives (National Center for Health Statistics Division of CDC, 2003; International Pharmacists for Life, 2003). It’s clear that it is time for expansive and comprehensive education against contraception use. The very life and health of women and the country depend on it. As we watch this all play out it is easy to think that “Crazy is the New Normal”…….sex outside of marriage, doctors prescribing class A1 carcinogens and women, through hormonal contraceptives, chemically aborting possibly one baby every month.
That’s definitely CRAZY. But it will never be normal.

_____________________

Jenn Giroux, RN is a Registered Nurse and the new Executive Director of HLI America, a new program of Human Life International founded to educate on the physical, emotional, and spiritual harms of contraception and to highlight the beauty of having children. She and her husband, Dan, have nine children and live in Cincinnati.

This Day in History - 28 June 1776

The Declaration Committee presents their finished document to the Continental Congress

Somehow, I don't think it went down quite like this:



It probably wasn't even like what is portrayed in this painting of the event by John Trumbell:

In fact, despite how the musical 1776 presents it, the Declaration itself was tabled. Instead Congress debated whether or not to declare indepenedence on 1 & 2 July before even getting to the document. John Adams did lead the charge. & John Dickinson was the leading opponant of doing anything at this time. After the 2 July vote declaring independence, the debate on the document itself began. That is the debate that is shown in the musical combined with soem of the debate on declaring independence itself. Actual records of the debate do not exist, so anything in the musical is based on later writings by those involved or dramatic license like the musical's portrayal of the slave trade passage debate.

The document presented on this day was written by Jefferson. Adams & Franklin did give a little feedback & made some minor changes, but Livingston & Sherman probably didn't even see Jefferson's draft.

The 1 thing 1776 does really get across though is how fragile things were & how close we came to NOT declaring independence that Summer. & yes it was "hot as hell in Philadephia!" that June & July.

As for the debate over our national bird, Franklin did want the turkey. & in light of how things are in DC these days, I think they should have listened to him. But the debate to adopt th eagle came long after this.

& if you wonder what John Adams thought of the painting (from the HBO miniseries based on David McCullough's book.):

With Heroes Like This, We DON'T Need Elena Kagan On the Supreme Court

Update on the Vandalism: Here Are Some Pictures of the Damage

The other day I put up a post about the TH finally reporting on the vandalism to my place (Better Late Than Never) that I had told everyone about earlier (This Just In). Before I get to the pictures of the vandalism here is a picture of the front with the only Pro-life sign I have at my place:

You will notice there is nothing about abortion or baby killers anywhere to be seen. This sign was put out by Dubuque Co Right to Life when Planned Parenthood 1st reared its ugly head in town.

Here is a shot of the entire back wall showing all the stuff written:

Here are some close ups:

Not sure if the Fu was the start of "F**k" or meant to me shorthand for "F**K You". Either way, you clearly get the person's attitude towards me & what I am standing up for.

Now you tell me how this could merely be someone who was only reacting to the sign in front? Or why anyone would even ask this question as the TH editor did: "Wouldn't you think a bona fide anti-abortion vandal would know how to spell abortion?"? This had to be someone who intentionally targetted me because of what I am doing, esp with this blog, to get the truth out about abortion.

Again look at this picture of what was done to my place:


Pretend it is the side of a PP clinic & it says "Stop Aboration" along with all the "baby killers". Can you imagine anyone in the media even thinking let alone asking "Wouldn't you think a bona fide anti-abortion vandal would know how to spell abortion?"? (I use the term anti-abortion since the term Pro-life would be even further from their minds.) Maybe a few. But then again, those few probably wouldn't have waited for me to contact them to cover it either.

As poor as the article was, at least it finally got published. In talking to the reporter it was clear she really didn't understand what I was trying to say in explaining some of why what was written was written & really didn't have any need to. Nothing against the reporter, but it was clear that this was simply a "we better do something since he brought it up" assignment that she was given.

After the TH put up the article Wed afternoon, I got a call from a reporter @ 1 of the local TV stations. I wasn't home when she called & when I called back she told me that the higher ups had decided not to do the story.

ProLife America also put a link to the TH story in their ProLife Daily section. I am grateful to them for helping to spread the word about the attacks on us Pro-Lifers that the Main Stream Media so often ignores unless (as is my case) they are forced to. I didn't go looking for this attention, but if it means getting the message out, I'll gladly help. Esp since doing so will provide a voice for all those Pro-lifers who have been vandalized even worse that I have & the MSM have ignored.

Fr. Paul Marx OSB On Sr. Joan Chittister

"And thank God you printed that "The Millstone Award" item. Sister Joan Chittister is a wicked woman, to say nothing of a wicked nun. Whoever wrote that article about Sister Chittister did a marvelous job; it is a great commentary on this wild nun who has been doing her dirty work for quite some time." (emphasis mine) - Letter to Fr. Tom Euteneuer from Fr. Paul Marx OSB, 20 August 2007

_________________

This quote was taken from an article in the Spring 2010 issue of Human Life International's FrontLines. The entire issue is a memorial to Fr. Marx who founded HLI & went home to the Lord on 20 March 2010. This quote is just 1 example of how Fr. Marx pulled no punches. In another letter he refers to Marie Stopes (the British doppelgänger of Margaret Sanger) as a "she-devil". & while the issue has none of his comments on Sanger, I am sure he didn't let her off any lighter than he did Stopes.

Fr. Marx stood up for the truth, defending the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion & contraception. & doing so wasn't always welcome, even by many Catholic Bishops. As Fr. Marx often said: "The truth will set you free, but it won't make you any friends." Something that I can say, in light of certain recent incidents, has been true in my life as well.

There will never be another Fr. Marx, but we can learn from him & allow the same Spirit that worked in & through him to inspire us to the smae boldness & outspokenness in defending authentic Catholic teaching & the unborn.

IMHO I also hope they open his cause for sainthood ASAP. The "Apostle of Life" is surely enjoying his eternal reward. & he is definitely interceding for us before the Heavenly Throne of Jesus.

That Was Then - Unfortunately It Is Now As Well

Abortion in Roman Britain?
by Brian Saint-Paul

It's tempting to romanticize the ancients, but stories like this remind us why we should not. Archaeologists in central England have been reviewing a mass burial site of 97 infants on the property of a Roman villa, and have come to an awful conclusion:
Archaeologist Dr Jill Eyers said: "The only explanation you keep coming back to is that it's got to be a brothel."
With little or no effective contraception, unwanted pregnancies could have been common at Roman brothels, explained Dr Eyers, who works for Chiltern Archaeology.
The victims were all newborn infants in their 40th week of gestation. At least some of the bones have cut marks.

These days it would probably be the garbage dumpster outside a planned parenthood where they would find the remains of a huge number of babies. OK, this was probably infanticide, not abortions, but with the attitude of children being disposable these days as well & with the way so-called ethicists like Peter Singer want us to go, this is scenario could very well be from today not 1600+ years ago.

If the US Bishops Had Been a Lot Clearer & Firmer in Upholding Catholic Teaching Before Now. . . .

the USCCB wouldn't have had to issue a document like this now. I will admit that the MSM would still be attacking the Catholic Church & esp twisting the facts. & it would have been more difficult for Sr. McBride or the CHA or the LCWR or Pelosi or Biden (do I have to go on?) to get away with all they have done to promote abortion & undermine Catholic teaching.

U.S. Bishops Back Phoenix Bishop in Nun Excommunication Abortion Case

By John-Henry Westen
WASHINGTON, June 25, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Doctrinal Committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) published a document this week to clarify misunderstandings about the case of an abortion that took place in a Catholic hospital in Phoenix.
A media frenzy erupted in May after Phoenix Bishop Thomas Olmsted announced the automatic excommunication of a nun who contributed to the decision to go ahead with the procedure. The nun in question, Sister Margaret McBride, had claimed that the abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother, who was suffering from pulmonary hypertension.
However, while various media gave the impression that pulmonary hypertension is a condition where abortion would be curative, Catholic medical experts pointed out that this is not the case.
In fact, neonatologist Dr. Paul Byrne explained to LifeSiteNews that with pulmonary hypertension, an abortion, although it may relieve some of the stress on the heart, may also make the situation worse due to the stress of the abortion procedure. Dr. Byrne also explained that the literature on the condition indicates that there have been successful interventions for pregnant women with pulmonary hypertension that have enabled both mother and child to survive.
In its statement, the USCCB Committee presents two scenarios that distinguish “between medical procedures that cause direct abortions,” which it says are “never morally permissible,” and those “that may indirectly result in the death of an unborn child,” which in certain extreme situations can be permissible.
The first scenario – that involving an illicit direct abortion – approximates the situation at the Phoenix Catholic hospital.
“In the first scenario, a pregnant woman is experiencing problems with one or more of her organs, apparently as a result of the added burden of pregnancy. The doctor recommends an abortion to protect the health of the woman.” The abortion, according to the example, “is likely to improve the functioning of the organ or organs, but only in an indirect way, i.e., by lessening the overall demands placed upon the organ or organs, since the burden posed by the pregnancy will be removed.”
Although the bishops admit that in the scenario “the abortion is the means by which a reduced strain upon the organ or organs is achieved,” they nevertheless explain that this amounts to “direct abortion” and is “never permissible because a good end cannot justify an evil means.”
“The surgery directly targets the life of the unborn child. It is the surgical instrument in the hands of the doctor that causes the child's death. The surgery does not directly address the health problem of the woman, for example, by repairing the organ that is malfunctioning,” they explain.
In the second scenario they present a case where a surgery to save the life of the mother can be legitimate even if it causes the death of an unborn child.
“In the second scenario, a pregnant woman develops cancer in her uterus. The doctor recommends surgery to remove the cancerous uterus as the only way to prevent the spread of the cancer. Removing the uterus will also lead to the death of the unborn child, who cannot survive at this point outside the uterus,” explains the document.
“The second scenario describes a situation in which an urgently-needed medical procedure indirectly and unintentionally (although foreseeably) results in the death of an unborn child. In this case the surgery directly addresses the health problem of the woman, i.e., the organ that is malfunctioning (the cancerous uterus). The woman's health benefits directly from the surgery, because of the removal of the cancerous organ. The surgery does not directly target the life of the unborn child.”
While the Bishops Committee document does not discuss excommunication, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: “Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.”
See the full USCCB document here.

This video reiterates what I said about so many US Bishops failing over tha past 40 yrs:

Battle of the Vatican Masters of Liturgical Cerimonies

H/T: Padre Giovanni Trigilio (Some Vatican Humor Before the Summer Break )

He Called My Paisan a What?????

Something tells me Ron Blackwell won't be answering any invitations to appear with Neil Cavuto for quite a long time. Unlike the MSM Cavuto refuses to settle for the BS & spin he was spewing out. & finally shows his true colors. Bravo to my paisan for not backing down.

850+ Orthodox Rabbis Can't Be Wrong

Jewish Rabbi's Proclaim: Elena Kagan Isn't 'Kosher' to Serve on Supreme Court

CNSNews (http://www.cnsnews.com/)

The rabbinical alliance called on the Senate Judiciary Committee to refuse to confirm Kagan to succeed the outgoing Justice John Paul Stevens
Rabbi Yehuda Levin, spokesman for the rabbinical alliance, told CNSNews.com on Thursday that "a great deal has been made about the fact that she would be the second Jewish woman on the court, and we want to signal to people across the country that we take no pride in this." Levin said most people are happy when "one of their own" is nominated to such a high position. But, he added, "We feel that Elena Kagan turns traditional Judaism on its head--from a concept of a nation of priests and holy people, she is turning it into, 'Let's homosexualize every segment of society. And by the way, partial-birth babies have no right to be delivered.'"

WASHINGTON, DC (CNSNews.com) - Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is "not kosher"--meaning she is not fit to serve on the court--according to more than 850 Orthodox members of the Rabbinical Alliance of America. That's the term the rabbis used about Kagan in a press release issued Thursday, saying "Elena Kagan is not kosher. She is not fit to sit on this Court--or any court."

Rabbi Yehuda Levin (r), spokesman for the alliance, told CNSNews.com on Thursday that "a great deal has been made about the fact that she would be the second Jewish woman on the court, and we want to signal to people across the country that we take no pride in this."

Levin said most people are happy when "one of their own" is nominated to such a high position. But, he added, "We feel that Elena Kagan turns traditional Judaism on its head--from a concept of a nation of priests and holy people, she is turning it into, 'Let's homosexualize every segment of society. And by the way, partial-birth babies have no right to be delivered.'"

In a statement issued Thursday, the rabbinical alliance called on the Senate Judiciary Committee to refuse to confirm Kagan to succeed the outgoing Justice John Paul Stevens.

"It is clear from Ms. Kagan's record on issues such as abortion-on-demand, partial-birth-abortion, the radical homosexual and lesbian agenda, the 'supremacy' of the anti-family panoply over religious liberties of biblical adherents, et. al., that she will function as a flame-throwing radical, hastening society's already steep decline into Sodom and Gomorrah," the rabbis said in the statement.

Levin told CNSNews.com that his fellow rabbis--and hundreds of thousands of Orthodox and traditional Jews--are puzzled at the president's choice of Kagan.

"What exactly was Obama thinking, President Obama thinking, when he nominated Kagan? Because eventually, down the road, someone--or some group--is going to 'take the hit' for the crazy decisions that Kagan is bound to make. So we would have much preferred if President Obama had given this 'distinction' to another minority group, instead of singling out the Jews."

Barring a rebuff from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Levin told CNSNews.com that the rabbis want someone in the Senate to launch a filibuster to stop Kagan's nomination from coming to a vote.

"We're waiting for the more courageous, decent senators--whether it's a (Sen.) Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) or a (Sen.) Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) or a (Sen.) Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)--we're looking for them to stand up and filibuster this embarrassing endangerment of a nomination," Levin said.

Confirmation hearings for Kagan begin Monday at the Senate Judiciary Committee. Neither Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) nor Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.)--both members of the committee, known Kagan supporters and top Jewish members of the Senate--responded to calls for comment on this story.

What PP-Heartland Is Doing Is Definitely Criminal & Probably Illegal As Well

Given that Iowa's AG, Tom Miller, is a pro-abortion Catholic, I am not all all surprized he is making excuses for not investigating Planned Parenthood- Heartland. In fact he has a track record of failures & delays in doing what he should, esp when it comes to fellow Dems or those who provide monetary donations to them. It took the public outcry of his Republican opponant Brenna Findley about his failure to investigate ‘improper contributions’ to Governor Culver's campaign. (FYI, he was also against abortion until he decided to run for governor back in the 90s.)

As Operation Rescue points out in this article from their website, there is plenty of precedence for Miller to act, if he truly wanted to, esp since the activity isn't limited to a single county. In fact, since the doctor is usually in 1 county & the PP clinic in another this is clearly something that should be investigated on a statewide level.

Another fact is the fact that PP & the Dems are in bed with each other. & Miller isn't about to offend 1 of the Dems biggest supporters. A check of the Iowa Ethics & Campaign Disclosure Board website shows that Miller hasn't gotten any donations from Planned Parenthood PACs but I am not sure about all individuals who are a part of PP since I don't know a lot of the names. But PP has given plenty of money to the Democratic Party & individual candidates. ($10,000 for Culver this year alone.) & Miller's track record shows he will not go against the Dems unless forced to by public outrage.

I applaud Operation Rescue for all the hard work they are doing to stop PP & their abuse of the telemed process.

Iowa Attorney General Attempts to Pass the Buck On Illegal Abortion Complaint

Des Moines, Iowa – A reporter has told Operation Rescue that the Iowa Attorney General’s office is making several excuses for not pursuing a criminal complaint filed against Planned Parenthood over their telemed abortion scheme even though no one in the office had yet read the complaint.
UPDATE: Read today’s article about this in the Des Moines Register.
Des Moines Register reporter Tony Leys engaged in an e-mail exchange with Troy Newman and Cheryl Sullenger Thursday evening when he asked for reaction to comments made by an unnamed representative in the Attorney General’s office. The current Attorney General is Tom Miller, a pro-abortion Democrat who is up for re-election in November.
“The Iowa attorney general’s office is pointing out to me that they generally wouldn’t decide on criminal charges in such matters. It would be up to the county attorney,” said Leys in an e-mail to Sullenger.
Ley also indicated to Newman that no one in the Attorney General’s office had yet read the complaint, yet the representative thought that the Iowa Board of Medicine should first decide if law had been violated before their office became involved.
“It sounds like the fix is in. The Attorney General already making excuses for why he will not investigate possible illegal abortions by Planned Parenthood and is passing the buck onto others without having even read the complaint,” said Newman. “This smacks of political corruption and cronyism. I have to wonder how close of a relationship Miller has with Planned Parenthood.”
“Because Planned Parenthood’s telemed abortion scheme involves remotely dispensing dangerous abortion drugs at the push of a button in as many as twelve Iowa counties, it was only logical to file our complaint with the Attorney General’s office since he would be the only one to have jurisdiction in all of the locations involved,” said Sullenger. “There is a jurisdictional question since the licensed physician never leaves Polk County, yet distributes abortion drugs to remote counties over 100 miles away. In which county is the crime committed, the county where the button is pushed or the county where the drugs are actually dispensed? Filing with the AG solves the obvious jurisdictional problems.
“As for waiting until the Iowa Medical Board acts, it is irresponsible for the state’s ‘top cop’ to continue to allow women to be placed at risk while they delay law enforcement on the outcome of an investigation of a Board that very likely operates under different burdens of proof.”
In many other states, the medical boards usually act in response to evidence gathered in criminal complaints.
For example, in California, the Board of Osteopathy revoked the license of abortionist Laurence Reich only after his conviction on two counts of sexual assault on his patients. In Kansas, the Attorney General’s office charged and tried abortionist George Tiller before the Board of Healing Arts even made their intentions to discipline him public. In Nebraska, abortionist LeRoy Carhart is simultaneously under investigation by the Department of Health and the Attorney General’s office based on complaints filed by Operation Rescue.
“There is more than enough precedent for the Iowa Attorney General to investigate illegal abortions in his state, with or without the direction of the Iowa Medical Board,” said Newman. “It is troubling that he would so flippantly blow off such a serious matter when the lives and health of women are at stake without ever having laid eyes on the complaint. It makes me wonder what he is trying to hide.”
Contact Attorney General Tom Miller and ask him to investigate Planned Parenthood for their remote-controlled telemed abortion pill scheme.
Voice: 515-281-5164Email: webteam@ag.state.ia.us

See also: Criminal Complaint Against Telemed Abortions Filed With Iowa Attorney General

Bishop Morlino - Hero or Villian*

Depends on if it is the Main Stream Media reporting Bishop Morlino's decision to assign 3 priests with the Society of Jesus Christ the Priest to cover both St. Mary's Parish and the St. Augustine University Parish in Platteville:

Platteville parishioners grumble (TH headline)

or LifeSiteNews:

Young Wisconsin Catholics Cheer Bishop Morlino for Welcoming Orthodox Priests

I have to admit that I am watching this with interest for a variety of reasons. I am familiar with both parishes in Platteville. Although I will admit more so with St. Augustine than St. Mary's. Bishop Morlino is trying to clean up a rat's nest that goes back to the 70s. & not just in Platteville. & it is not surprizing that he is meeting resistance.

In 2006 he required a recorded homily of his teaching on voting in favour of life and family to be played at every Mass on a certain Sunday before the election. he also sent a letter to every priest in the diocese warning of the "serious consequences" for priests who would contradict the vital teachings of the church in these matters. Some of the dissedent priests weren't happy with his actions & contacted the media. He got wind of the plot to embarrass him & released what was supposed to be a "personal and confidential" letter on the Diocesan website, beating them to the punch. the result was, rather than some dissident priests silencing Bishop Morlino, the full message of authentic Catholic teaching got a wider audience than originally planned.

Then last year he sacked a pastoral associate who advocated dissident liberation & feminist theology. The pastoral associate at St. Thomas parish was dismissed by Bishop Morlino after she refused to recant a 2003 Master's degree thesis extolling the use of female pronouns in describing God & questioning obedience to Church hierarchy. He said he had found her overall teaching mentality "troublesome" as well.

If you read the TH article I linked to, you will notice that no supporters of Bishop Morlino's actions were quoted. Just a couple of the "some members" of the parish that were unhappy with the changes. & something tells me that the lack of communication is from the parishes up, not from the chancery down as the article tries to paint it.

I also suppose the closing (mis)quote is from 1 of the newly assigned priests. It says "As priests, we welcome anyone who has dedicated their life to Christ, but as dogma, we disagree." but doesn't say who said it. I also suspect that he was trying to make it clear that as a Catholic priest it is his duty & responsibility to uphold authentic Catholic teaching. But the way the quote reads, it makes it sound like there is room for disagreement & that it is open to discussion.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. In the short run, you will see some unhappy dissidents leave, but in the long run, you will see 2 renewed, lively & orthodox parishes.

*IMHO Superhero!!!!!

Amazing Picture

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you...." Jeremiah 1:5

1 of my oldest friends recently sent me this composite picture of his 1st grandson. The picture of Jack on the left was taken several months ago via an ultrasound his daughter-in-law had. & the picture on the right was taken shortly after he was born earlier this month.

I am almost as awed by it as his grandfather was. At times it seems like yesterday when Jack's dad was brought home. (Note: I was 1 of the groomsmen @ the wedding of Jack's paternal grandparents. I also remember when they brought home Jack's father after the adoption went through.)

This picture shows you why Planned Parenthood & other abortion providers are so against being required to do ultrasounds before doing an abortion. & why it is important that we support crisis pregnancy centers & help them to provide 4D ultrasounds as well.

Viva Italia! Another Adult Stem Cell Breakthrough Proves Embryonic Stem Cell Promoters Blind Themselves to the Facts

Couldn't resist the pun. "Roaring success" is an understatement. So is "stunning success". This just shows once again that there is no need to waste money on embryonic stem cell research. It also shows once again that those who try & promote it are lying when they claim that stem cell treatments are only a thing in the future & only if we throw money at embryonic stem cell research.

Adult stem cells reverse blindness caused by burns
BY ALICIA CHANG THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

AP – This image from an Italian study published online Wednesday, June 23, 2010 by the New England Journal …

LOS ANGELES – Dozens of people who were blinded or otherwise suffered severe eye damage when they were splashed with caustic chemicals had their sight restored with transplants of their own stem cells — a stunning success for the burgeoning cell-therapy field, Italian researchers reported Wednesday.
The treatment worked completely in 82 of 107 eyes and partially in 14 others, with benefits lasting up to a decade so far. One man whose eyes were severely damaged more than 60 years ago now has near-normal vision.
"This is a roaring success," said ophthalmologist Dr. Ivan Schwab of the University of California, Davis, who had no role in the study — the longest and largest of its kind.
Stem cell transplants offer hope to the thousands of people worldwide every year who suffer chemical burns on their corneas from heavy-duty cleansers or other substances at work or at home.
The approach would not help people with damage to the optic nerve or macular degeneration, which involves the retina. Nor would it work in people who are completely blind in both eyes, because doctors need at least some healthy tissue that they can transplant.
In the study, published online by the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers took a small number of stem cells from a patient's healthy eye, multiplied them in the lab and placed them into the burned eye, where they were able to grow new corneal tissue to replace what had been damaged. Since the stem cells are from their own bodies, the patients do not need to take anti-rejection drugs.
Adult stem cells have been used for decades to cure blood cancers such as leukemia and diseases like sickle cell anemia. But fixing a problem like damaged eyes is a relatively new use. Researchers have been studying cell therapy for a host of other diseases, including diabetes and heart failure, with limited success.
Adult stem cells, which are found around the body, are different from embryonic stem cells, which come from human embryos and have stirred ethical concerns because removing the cells requires destroying the embryos.
Currently, people with eye burns can get an artificial cornea, a procedure that carries such complications as infection and glaucoma, or they can receive a transplant using stem cells from a cadaver, but that requires taking drugs to prevent rejection.
The Italian study involved 106 patients treated between 1998 and 2007. Most had extensive damage in one eye, and some had such limited vision that they could only sense light, count fingers or perceive hand motions. Many had been blind for years and had had unsuccessful operations to restore their vision.
The cells were taken from the limbus, the rim around the cornea, the clear window that covers the colored part of the eye. In a normal eye, stem cells in the limbus are like factories, churning out new cells to replace dead corneal cells. When an injury kills off the stem cells, scar tissue forms over the cornea, clouding vision and causing blindness.
In the Italian study, the doctors removed scar tissue over the cornea and glued the laboratory-grown stem cells over the injured eye. In cases where both eyes were damaged by burns, cells were taken from an unaffected part of the limbus.
Researchers followed the patients for an average of three years and some as long as a decade. More than three-quarters regained sight after the transplant. An additional 13 percent were considered a partial success. Though their vision improved, they still had some cloudiness in the cornea.
Patients with superficial damage were able to see within one to two months. Those with more extensive injuries took several months longer.
"They were incredibly happy. Some said it was a miracle," said one of the study leaders, Graziella Pellegrini of the University of Modena's Center for Regenerative Medicine in Italy. "It was not a miracle. It was simply a technique."
The study was partly funded by the Italian government.
Researchers in the United States have been testing a different way to use self-supplied stem cells, but that work is preliminary.
One of the successful transplants in the Italian study involved a man who had severe damage in both eyes as a result of a chemical burn in 1948. Doctors grafted stem cells from a small section of his left eye to both eyes. His vision is now close to normal.
In 2008, there were 2,850 work-related chemical burns to the eyes in the United States, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Schwab of UC Davis said stem cell transplants would not help those blinded by burns in both eyes because doctors need stem cells to do the procedure.
"I don't want to give the false hope that this will answer their prayers," he said.
Dr. Sophie Deng, a cornea expert at the UCLA's Jules Stein Eye Institute, said the biggest advantage was that the Italian doctors were able to expand the number of stem cells in the lab. This technique is less invasive than taking a large tissue sample from the eye and lowers the chance of an eye injury.
"The key is whether you can find a good stem cell population and expand it," she said.

How Twisted & Perverted Out Educational System Has Gotten

This is allowed at a public school:

Condom distribution policy starting in elementary school at Provincetown, Mass.

Sex education starts early, especially if you go to elementary school in Provincetown, Mass.
That’s because the school committee has unanimously adopted a condom distribution policy beginning as early as first grade.
According to the Provincetown Banner, the program requires that students speak to a school nurse or trained counselor before receiving condoms.
The committee also directed school leaders not to honor demands from parents who object to their kids receiving protection. This is plain & simple undermining of parental authority. & this is exactly the kind of thing that Planned Parenthood loves to promote.

Some members on the committee were wary because the program requires that students speak to school officials first.
But Beth Singer, the school’s superintendent, said she wanted to guarantee younger students get information on how to use condoms because there is no age limit. Dr. Singer might do well to be more concerned about the fact that enrollment is dropping at the system she is in charge of. maybe 1 of the rasons is that parents are tired of their rights being stomped on instead of the reasons given in the article. I also wonder how big of a supporter of PP she & aother board members are because, as I pointed out above, this is right in line w/ PP's agenda.
“We’re talking about younger kids,” said Singer. “They have questions they need answered on how to use them, when to use them.” Like I said, right out of PP's playbook.

H/T: Jill Stanek (Public school sex ed gone wild: condoms for 1st graders; stuffed animal sex)

Or this from the '"telemed abortion" pushing gang of Planned Parenthood-Heartland here in Iowa (another infamia that tarnishes the good name of Iowa) :

Parents Outraged at Planned Parenthood Class Teaching Sexual Positions

The group's teen page, meanwhile, teaches visitors "all about the anus" and lauds the health benefits of masturbation.

By Kathleen Gilbert
SHENANDOAH, Iowa, June 24, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Parents in Southwest Iowa have reacted in horror after learning that Planned Parenthood's co-ed sex education course not only used pornographic teaching materials but also taught children sexual positions.
Colleen Dostal told Fox News Radio, after discovering that her 14-year-old son had been taught sexual positions using stuffed animals meant to represent STDs, that the class was "horribly inappropriate."
“I do not understand why any adult with a classroom of children would show them sexual positions,” she told Fox.
Dostal said the class also included directions on performing female exams and used an anatomically correct model of a male sex organ to explain how to use a condom.
The parents said the school's principal was "mortified" when told the content of the class and apologized. Mortified about the content, or that PP got outed. Anyone who is familiar w/ PP knows this is typical for their sex-ed speakers. (See below for link to PP webpages that back this up.) Several other parents complained to school superintendent Dick Profit. Profit, however, claimed he had received equal numbers of calls supporting and opposing the explicit sex-ed, according to the World Herald.
Speaking for Planned Parenthood, Jennifer Horner defended the curriculum as giving children "accurate" information. As Jill Stanek points out in her post about this that "accurate" info includes redefining abstinence to mean using a condom. ""The definition we give is abstinence is refraining from any activity that puts you at risk for a sexually transmitted infection or pregnancy." using a condom would definitely fit into that definition despite Horner's claims to the contrary. She also claims that abortions "makes up only about 1 percent of the services they provide." As anyone who has studied PP knows, they twist the numbers to enable them to make claims like this. In her case, I suspect she is refering to surgical abortions as opposed to their "telemed" ones. & the fact that they count the same person more than once by making it look like they are different persons for each service probably is another part of that twisting.

"We are not trying to keep any of this a secret. All information we use is medically accurate and science based," she said. This has been disproven by Live Action & others. PP doesn't give out accurate info.
Planned Parenthood's extremely explicit take on teen sex-ed is evident from the "Teen Talk" section of their website, a series of pages decorated with images of heterosexual and homosexual intimacy, which leads youngsters to a wealth of information on deviant sexual practices.
One page entitled "All about the anus: how much do you really know about your anus?" gives explicit details on anal penetration as a source of sexual pleasure and "as a way to preserve the woman's virginity." While noting that anal penetration "is, of course, high risk for HIV," PP advocates using condoms or "Sheer Glyde dams" to protect against the fatal virus.
Elsewhere, Planned Parenthood dedicates a web page to advocating masturbation as "safe and healthy, and it's here to stay." The article hails the painkilling and stress-relieving qualities of masturbation, and assures that it's "fine" to do so several times a day.

Sad, sick & perverted. & the norm for PP. & something way too many educators approve of. & support Pp for doing.

But as this video report tells us there are certain things that these same so called education experts think are too dangerous for children to be exposed to:

H/T: Rick (Imagine What Teachers are Showing their Students )

Yup, those documents that make the United States what we are & teach us what it truly means to be a real American, & are the 1st things our children should be learning are being labelled as dangerous. This fits in to what I pointed out 2 weeks ago about the publishing house that is putting warning labels on these same documents.

Something tells me that the way things are in education today isn't the way John Adams envisioned things when he said "Laws for the liberal education of the youth, especially of the lower class of the people, are so extremely wise and useful, that, to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant." (Thoughts on Government, 1776)

Remember This? Do You Have the Courage to Admit It?

File these under guilty pleasures:

Charted at #23 on Billboard Hot 100 in 1970, #1 on Billboard Country chart, & #15 on Billboard Adult Contemporary chart.



Charted at #78 on Billboard Hot 100 in 1970, #5 on Billboard Country chart, & #34 on Billboard Adult Contemporary chart. This was the follow-up to "Tennessee Bird Walk".



Charted in the UK at #2. In the United States, the song charted at #16 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart & #11 on the country chart.

Frank's daughter peaked at #1 in both the UK & US with this 1.



Took the 4th place slot in the Eurovision contest for 1971. 4th on the UK singles chart as well.

OK, I think that is enough guilt for 1 day!

Somehow Planned Parenthood Doing This Doesn't Surprize Me

Disgusts me, Yes. Surprizes, NO! It fits into their sick & twisted view of the world where evil is good. For PP it appears that the only type of parenthood they approve of is when the parents are white lesbians. Otherwise, kill the babies. Esp if they are minorities.

Do people who support PP understand the real message they are sending to any children they have? Do they realize that they are telling those children that the only reason you are here is because it was convenient for us & that we would have gotten rid of you otherwise? Do they realize they are telling their children they don't really love them? Do the parents realize that they are telling the children how worthless they are? Speaking as someone who was emotionally abused as a child, I find the message being sent is horrendous these parents ARE guilty of child abuse.

St. Louis Planned Parenthood to Offer Artificial Insemination

By James Tillman
MISSOURI, St. Louis, June 23, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Planned Parenthood of St. Louis is planning to offer artificial insemination services in the fall of 2010.
A newly-released Planned Parenthood advertisement about the new services features two women hugging each other, with text above them stating "they just found out they're expecting, finally."
"This is disturbing, and consistent with Planned Parenthood’s warped view of sex and children," Wendy Wright, President of the Concerned Women's Alliance, told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN).
While artificial insemination is fairly widespread, it remains deeply controversial, with many critics arguing that it leads people to view children as a consumer good that can be bought when desired.
"Planned Parenthood treats children as products to be eliminated or created for the pleasure of others," Wright told LSN. "They attempt to divorce sex from procreation, and procreation from sex."
In addition, research has indicated that artificial insemination may have a variety of unintended consequences for both the child and his or her parents. A recent study found that donor-conceived children were more likely to be isolated from their parents or be delinquent, while parents who use artificial insemination are more likely to get divorced.