Planned Parenthood Endorses Post-Abortion Infanticide

Even the Florida legislators were gobsmacked

Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion were shocked during a committee hearing this week when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed a right to post-birth abortion.

Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believesthe decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.

“So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Rep. Jim Boyd. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

“We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.

Oh.joy. Planned Parenthood tacitly approves of Kermit Gosnell.

No wonder coverage of his trial has received little Lamestream media coverage.

h/t - Protein Wisdom

Will Pope Francis fulfill Benedict's legacy on abortion and Communion?

ROME, March 20, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - One of the little-known legacies of Pope Benedict XVI is his consistent push to have pro-abortion politicians given the opportunity to repent and come back to a right relationship with God by refusing them Holy Communion. Benedict’s public role in the matter began in 2004 prior to his pontificate, while head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Pope John Paul II.

At that time, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger intervened into a debate among the U.S. bishops on the issue of Communion for pro-abortion Catholic politicians. The then-Cardinal said in his letter titled "Worthiness to receive Holy Communion," that a Catholic politician who would vote for "permissive abortion and euthanasia laws" after being duly instructed and warned, "must" be denied Communion.

Ratzinger’s letter explained that if such a politician "with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it."

As Pope, Benedict XVI confirmed this position. Answering a reporter on an in-flight press conference in 2007, he responded to a question on the Mexican bishops excommunicating politicians who support legalizing abortion. "Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon law, which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving Communion, which is receiving the Body of Christ," said the Pope.

Will Pope Francis follow suit?

The initial signs are positive that Pope Francis will follow in Pope Benedict’s footsteps on the matter.

As LSN reported in 2007, it was Pope Francis (then-Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio) who, on behalf of the bishops of Latin America presented the "Aparecida Document" regarding the situation of the Church in their countries. The document made a very clear statement regarding the consequences of supporting abortion, disallowing Holy Communion for anyone who facilitates an abortion, including politicians.

The text states in paragraph 436 that "we should commit ourselves to ‘Eucharistic coherence,’ that is, we should be conscious that people cannot receive Holy Communion and at the same time act or speak against the commandments, in particular when abortion, euthanasia, and other serious crimes against life and family are facilitated. This responsibility applies particularly to legislators, governors, and health professionals."

But beyond this signal is Francis’ approach to matters eternal, seeing true love as embracing the cross and the eternal realities rather than merely the temporal and political climate.

But Pope Francis is “pastoral”

To answer the common objection that such disciplinary measures would not be employed with a pastoral approach, one must consider the nature of denial of Holy Communion.

From the earliest days of the Church, receiving Holy Communion unworthily has been forbidden; but forbidden out of concern for those who would make such unworthy Communions. St. Paul in the eleventh chapter of First Corinthians wrote: "Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord." (1 Cor. 11:27-29)

From this perspective, Bishops who treat Catholic politicians who support abortion as if they were in full Communion with the Church are neglecting their pastoral concern and charity for their wayward spiritual children.

As Pope Benedict’s appointee to head the highest court in the Vatican, Cardinal Raymond Burke told LifeSiteNews in a 2009 interview, politicians who are persisting in what the Church says is a "grave sin" must be refused Communion for the sake of their own souls. "When you talk to these people, they know," he said. "They know what they're doing is very wrong. They have to answer to God for that, but why through our pastoral negligence add on to that, that they have to answer to God for who knows how many unworthy receptions of Holy Communion?"

The highest authority on the subject in the Vatican, next to the Pope, is the head (or Prefect) of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal Antonio Canizares. In a 2009 LifeSiteNews interview, Cardinal Canizares said: "The strongest words are found in St. Paul: one who goes to the Eucharist and is not properly prepared, duly prepared, 'he eats his own condemnation.' This is the strongest thing that we can say and what is the most truthful statement."

He noted that this approach to love in truth is contained in Benedict’s encyclical Caritas in Veritate: “This principle, caritas in veritate [love in truth], should be the principle used, first by politicians when they come to Communion, and second it should be the rule for bishops when they decide whether to give or to withdraw Communion."

It remains to be seen if Pope Francis will fulfill the legacy of Pope Benedict on this question. As hard as Pope Benedict pushed for this pastoral reform, it was rarely practiced or enforced by bishops in the West.

Perhaps Pope Francis will be more successful in having the world’s bishops get with the program.

Judge Rules That Texas Teen Can Keep Her Baby in Forced Abortion Case

HOUSTON, February 19, 2013, (LifeSiteNews.com) — A judge has granted an injunction to the pregnant Houston teenager who sued her parents to stop them from forcing her to have an abortion. Attorneys with the Texas Center for Defense of Life (TCDL), who represented the girl, were granted a long-term injunction by the 308th Family District Court of Harris County, prohibiting the girl’s parents from coercing her to have an abortion for the entire duration of her pregnancy.

“This is a tremendous victory, and another life has been saved,” said TCDL attorney and President Greg Terra. “Our victory today stands for the principle that ‘choice’ goes both ways. Under Roe v. Wade and post-Roe cases, a teenage girl has the absolute legal right to choose life, even over the strong objections, pressure, and punishments of her parents.”

In the lawsuit, the girl, who is 16, claimed that her parents and grandparents conspired to slip her an abortion-inducing drug.

She told the court that her parents took away her phone and car and kept her out of school as punishment for not aborting their grandchild.

She said they threatened to take away her health insurance and permanently disown her if she had the baby.

Said Terra, “We are extremely happy with the judge’s decision today, and we are very proud of our teenage client for being strong enough to stand against her parents to save her unborn child’s life.”

Thou Shalt Not Kill?

Today I am marking the occasion of my one thousandth post with something I have been sitting on for a while.

For some time the use of the phrase "Thou shalt not kill", by persons promoting an agenda or way of life outside of religion has really bothered me. And the people I often see using it fall into one of two groups.

Group A - The "I really hate religion, because the rest of the coffee house revolutionaries hate religion, but we will use religious words to shame those stupid superstitious believers to support our cause" (anti-capital punishment, animal rights and/or anti-military)

Group B - Members of religious communities, groups or organizations that have been duped by or sympathetic to Group A.

Now the problem really is not that they use the phrase per se, but that they use it out of context and out of time; for the phrase had a different understanding by people in the time which the phrase had been translated from the original text and in that texts original language. (btw, this is not relativism of the Bible, that will come in modern times)

The passage I am referring to is Exodus 20:13, in which we as lineal readers and the children of Israel in linear time are first made aware of the Commandment from God "Thou shalt not kill" and most people understood what it meant from the time of Moses leading his people out of Egypt to about the middle of the 20th century. Then comes modern and post-modern theological and linguistic relativism and people interpret this to mean what ever suits them; to someone who opposes capital punishment it means that criminals should not be executed for the most heinous crimes, to animal rights activists it means that people should not hunt or slaughter animals for food and to those who oppose the military or warfare it means that wars should never be fought, regardless of justification and in the most extreme cases those who mourn trees and plants that they claim humans have murdered.

This is where context and translation comes into play. The word for “kill” used in the Hebrew of the Old Testament is ratsach (raw-tsakh') a primitive root that means to kill a human, murder or manslaughter. It does not translate into “Thou shalt not kill animals for their tasty meat or hides for your use”, for it was understood that we had been given dominion over animals by God (Genesis 1:26) and that the people of the Old Testament and Covenant sacrificed animals to J*****h in the temples. So PETA can stop with this non-sense straight away.

Those against capital punishment say “you can do as you please with animals, but you must leave these criminals be"; well, the problem with that is that God had also covered the whole capital punishment thing early on in the Old Testament – “Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” (Genesis 9:6) – “So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.” (Numbers 35-33). In fact in the Old Testament there are sixteen offences that where capital crimes punishable by death, the catch is God wanted the execution of law breakers to be carried out by duly constituted legal authorities, courts of law and governments and not by vigilantes or mobs.

There will be those who will say "capital punishment went out the window with Jesus and the New Testament"...ah not really. "And as for those who were against me, who would not have me for their ruler, let them come here, and be put to death before me." (St. Luke 19:27 - The Parable of the Pounds) and "Now what will the lord do to these workmen? He will come and put them to destruction and give the garden to others." (St. Luke 20:15-16 - The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen). Saints Peter and Paul deferred to the right of Civil Government to promulgate law and order, even unto their own executions. For a more concise and compelling arguments on this subject may I suggest this article here…

And as to the argument that the Commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, prohibits warfare and combat, I don’t believe that it prohibits either. Starting in Genesis 14, when the Patriarch Abraham arms his men (all 318 of them) and conducts a guerrilla war against Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations; they having attacked other nations in the region, including Sodom and in those attacks had captured plunder and prisoners, among them Lot, Abraham's nephew. So, early on in the Bible we have our first case of a “Just War” in freeing innocent civilians taken as plunder. In Exodus 15, Moses and the people of Israel sing unto the Lord and praised Him for personally destroying Pharaoh and the army of Egypt as it gave pursuit to return Israel to bondage...so God does have a use for war in the defence and liberation of his people.

Many may accuse me of being bloodthirsty, conflicted or un-Christian, but nothing can be further from the truth. I see what has been written and see the turmoil that our civilization has thrown itself into by abandoning these laws and commandments for some ideal of humanity, and those who consider themselves great humanitarians support the execution the most innocent and defenceless people (without the benefit of trial or advocacy), all the while humiliating, dehumanizing and devaluing their victims. I will not call names or cast epithets at these people as they do so unto others, neither shall I hold my tongue when I see something wrong happening (it's the Yankee in me), nor will I pretend to judge anyone for that is not my place, I am just using my God given right to voice my opinion.


Reference and Resources:

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07523&version=kjv
http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/7523.htm
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1974
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2585
http://www.christendomisfightingback.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War

†

The Manhattan Declaration

It seems that the news of this noble project has been limited to blogs and Christian media. Due to this limited exposure there are few who have read or signed the Manhattan Declaration.

A summary of the declaration is found on the main page of it's web-site

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

I urge everyone to read the full declaration, to add thier electronic signature to it and to spread the word about this important document so that others may sign it and it could have a greater impact on politicians, churches and society.



+

Greasing the Skids

I try to keep political commentary to a minimum on this blog, but when I saw it hit my skeptic button.


Kansas Governor Signs Bill Ensuring Those Seeking Abortions Can See Ultrasound First
-----------------------------------------AP

TOPEKA, Kan. — Gov. Kathleen Sebelius signs a bill ensuring that women and girls seeking abortions can see ultrasound images before the procedure.

The legislation, signed Friday and taking effect July 1, also ensures that abortion patients can listen to the fetal heartbeat.

Sebelius signed the measure as she awaits U.S. Senate confirmation as federal Health and Human Services secretary. Anti-abortion groups in Washington have criticized her nomination because of her abortion rights stance.

The Kansas governor offered no explanation of why she signed the bill, though she's never targeted such provisions when she's vetoed past abortion measures.

The bill amends a state law requiring doctors to obtain a patient's informed consent before performing an abortion.

Now, maybe some prayers have been answered and Gov. Sebelius has had a change of heart about abortion, but the voice in the back of my head tells me that it is more likely that she is trying to do an image makeover as to appear moderate on the issue as to get through the confirmation process and that if confirmed she will return to her Herodian ways.

The Truth About Obama and Abortion

For those who may think that BHO, Jr. is moderate on abortion, get the wool off of your eyes.

Dr. Robert George of Princeton University will tell you more: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama%27s%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml

and listen to an interview with Dr. George on the issue here:

Archbishops Scold Biden, Pelosi

I see that Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Biden have changed their expertise, from Foreign Affairs to Church History and Reproductive Medicine.

The 2008 Democratic Platform

1) The War is Lost
2) Abortion is Right
3) The Great Theologians are Wrong
4) Don't Destroy Evil

I am not a big fan of McCain's, but look at the alternative. Can we afford Obama to nominate people to the Supreme Court or any Federal Court?

Abortion-artist Insists that Project is Real

A Yale University student who touched off a campus firestorm with her shocking claims of repeatedly artificially inseminating herself and then inducing miscarriages as part of an art project stood by her story Friday, despite statements from the university that her version of events is "creative fiction."

In a guest column that ran in Friday's Yale Daily News — which first reported her claims in Thursday's edition — senior art major Aliza Shvarts maintained that she had conducted artificial inseminations and carried out what she characterized as self-induced miscarriage procedures, though she never actually knew whether she was pregnant.

"For the past year, I performed repeated self-induced miscarriages," Shvarts wrote in Friday's column. "Using a needleless syringe, I would inject the sperm near my cervix within 30 minutes of its collection, so as to insure the possibility of fertilization.

"On the 28th day of my cycle, I would ingest an abortifacient, after which I would experience cramps and heavy bleeding. ... Because the miscarriages coincide with the expected date of menstruation (the 28th day of my cycle), it remains ambiguous whether the there (sic) was ever a fertilized ovum or not.

The Rest of the Story

Beyond Deplorable (maybe down right evil)

A Yale student who claims she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" and then took drugs to induce miscarriages for her senior art project says she will showcase the stomach-turning display next week — complete with her own blood samples and videos from the terminated possible pregnancies.

Another hack artist, who probably doesn't have the skill to do a coloring book is relying on the shock art scam in the most hideous way yet.

What is next for the depraved art world? How about murdering an adult for arts sake? "Oh my, she captured the blood splatter so well on that canvas, look at how the brain matter jumps out at you."

How about a nice landscape or a portrait of a living person?

Yale Art Student Claims She Used Blood Samples, Video of Self-Induced Abortions for Senior Project

Update .. It appears that the particulars of the story are a fabrication.

Yale University officials issued a strongly worded statement Thursday night explaining that a student's shocking claim that she had artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" and then took drugs to induce miscarriages for her senior art project was "creative fiction."

The student, Aliza Shvarts, told three senior Yale University officials, including two deans, that she did not do the things she claimed in her art project, according to the statement.

"The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body," said Helaine S. Klasky, associate dean and vice president for public affairs in a statement sent to FOXNews.com. "Ms. Shvarts is engaged in performance art. Her art project includes visual representations, a press release and other narrative materials."

"She is an artist and has the right to express herself through performance art," Klasky wrote.

The Yale Daily News broke the story earlier in the day. Before the university had announced that Shvarts didn't actually perform the acts, news of the project sparked widespread disgust and outrage.