Conn. School Censors 'Controversial' Pro-life Kids

Principal Lee Panagoulias of Branford (Connecticut) High School told the Students for Life club that their pro-life message is just too controversial, and so unlike other student clubs, the pro-life student organization is not allowed to display beliefs or even discuss the subject matter during school hours with other students.

“The First Amendment protects everyone, regardless of the speech that you’re presenting to the student body, regardless of whether it seems controversial to the administration.”
-- Sam Bailey-Loomis, president and founder of the BHS Students for Life

For background, read Washington School OKs Gay Message, but Censors Pro-life Students as well as California School Loses Lawsuit Against Pro-life Student

And also read Planned Parenthood 'Special Forces' Raid Schoolyards

In addition, read Parents Want Obama-paid Abortionist out of Their School



-- From "Branford Student Pro-Life Group Leader Claims Discrimination by School Administrators" by Steven M. Mazzacane, The Branford Seven 3/10/14

The website LifeNews.com is reporting that Sam Bailey Loomis, who leads the group, and her fellow members have faced resistance from [Principal] Panagoulias dating back to February of 2013.

. . . The article states that, according to Bailey Loomis, she had approached Panagoulias about hosting events to inform others about her club, and after a series of postponements, something the article calls “delay” tactics, ultimately informed her that “the club could not hand out pro-life literature, clipboard, or set up an information table in the commons area during lunch.”

The article is extremely vague when it comes to stating what the exact requests were and what the circumstances were. It is not known if other students are allowed to hand out literature during lunch, or what issues would be raised if it were allowed.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Branford High Students for Life club’s censorship claim draws national attention" by Mark Zaretsky, New Haven Register 3/11/14

Bailey-Loomis said that since the controversy began, “I have had people talk about me online, talk about me to my face ... I have had an angry mother complain about me to the Board of Education ...”

“We cannot sit back while our pro-life students are denied their constitutional rights and bullied by their school administrators,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, in the release. “At Branford High School, there is double standard for pro-life students, and we intend to expose this injustice and correct it.”

Last week, the Alliance Defending Freedom group sent a letter to Branford High and Branford Public Schools on behalf of Branford High School Students for Life “requesting that they end their discriminatory behavior against the group,” the release said.

This not the first time the group has made news. In September 2012, members wrote several messages in chalk on school walkways as part of National Pro-Life Chalk Day, which were quickly erased by school staff.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Connecticut High School Administration Censors Pro-Life Student Group" by Kristan Hawkins, LifeNews.com 3/10/14

. . . In the past few weeks, Mr. Panagoulias denied Sam and her club the ability to invite others to join the group in the form of clip boarding and handing out literature to students during lunch. The school has also told Branford High School Students for Life that they can only host events after school, a restriction not imposed on other student groups.

When planning the spring semester, Sam met with her principal to ask permission to host events and inform others about her club, going out of her way to be above reproach and adhere to the school’s policies. She came prepared with the Branford High School Student Handbook and made it clear that their proposed events were well within the student guidelines and were similar to those that other students clubs had been approved to do. The principal then told Sam he would “think about it” . . .

Sam Bailey-Loomis, President and Founder of Branford High School Students for Life remarked, “I hope that the Branford Public School system will respect the students at Branford High School by not acting as a barrier to the student body’s equal access to essential information regarding life. I am proud to be on the front lines alongside abortion abolitionists in high schools and colleges across the country to safeguard our rights, stand up for the preborn, and make a lasting impact on our campuses.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Answer this: Can YOUR Child Pass the Test -- to be Born?

Also read Lead Abortionist Asks, Who Cares When Life Begins?

Supreme Court Forces Abortion on Arizona Taxpayers

Although the U.S. Supreme Court recently let stand a 9th Circuit Appeals Court ruling that negates Arizona voters' rights to refuse to fund abortion, the voters' legislators continue to pass bills limiting abortionists' latitude in killing children.

For background, read Arizona Law Defunds Planned Parenthood as well as 9th Circuit Strikes Down Arizona's 20-week Abortion Law

Also read about the battle of the homosexualists vs. the citizens of Arizona.

-- From "Supreme Court won't consider Arizona abortion law" by The Associated Press 2/24/14

The U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to consider a move to resurrect an Arizona law that would have disqualified abortion providers from receiving public funding for other medical services.

That ruling was upheld last August by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which agreed with U.S. District Judge Neil Wake that the law violated federal Medicaid law by not allowing patients to freely choose a qualified medical provider.

The Supreme Court in May refused to revive a similar law in Indiana that also has been blocked.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Supreme Court: Arizona can’t defund Planned Parenthood" by Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services 2/25/14

In 2012 . . . state legislators amended the law [funding Medicaid] to say any organization that also provides abortions cannot be a “qualified provider.” Rep. Justin Olson, R-Mesa, who sponsored the legislation, said any money the government gives Planned Parenthood to pay for other expenses frees up funds for abortions [-- federal and state laws prohibit taxpayer-funded abortion].

Judge Marsha Berzon, writing for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, pointed out that the law says those enrolled in Medicaid, which includes the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, to get the services they need from any qualified provider. And Berzon said there is no evidence that Planned Parenthood medical staffers are not “qualified.”

In seeking Supreme Court review, Attorney General Tom Horne said states have a constitutional right to decide for themselves who is “qualified” to provide family planning services. He said that is not limited to the medical ability of staffers.

. . . Bryan Howard, president of Planned Parenthood Arizona, whose funding was at issue, called the ruling “a victory for Arizona women and their families.” Howard said the legislation amounted to political interference with health care choices by women.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Supreme Court Forces Arizona Residents to Fund Planned Parenthood, Abortions" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 2/24/14

The [2012] Whole Woman’s Health Funding Priority Act of Arizona (HB 2800) de-funded abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood of state family planning money. The bill prioritizes family planning funds away from abortion-centered businesses like Planned Parenthood to entities that provide women with comprehensive health care. The measure prohibits the state or any local government from using public money to contract with an organization that includes abortions.

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden, special assistant attorney general in defense of Arizona’s Whole Woman’s Healthcare Funding Prioritization Act, responded to the decision in an email to LifeNews:

“Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize the work of abortionists. Arizona should be free to enforce its public interest against the taxpayer funding of abortion and in favor of the best health care for women, which is what this law sought to do. We are disappointed that the Supreme Court did not decide to weigh in on that principle. Arizonans deserve the best policies and laws possible to protect both their money and their health,” Aden said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Arizona: Bill Advances to Allow Surprise Inspections of Abortion Clinics" by Hank Stephenson, New York Times 3/4/14

The State House of Representatives on Tuesday approved a measure that would allow state health department officials to conduct unannounced inspections of abortion clinics. The clinic inspections now require warrants, and Democrats argued that the legislation would empower public officials to harass abortion providers. Republicans said the bill would ensure that abortion providers were following state and federal laws.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Arizona advances bill for surprise inspections of abortion clinics" by David Schwartz, Reuters 3/4/14

The bill, which passed in the state House of Representatives 34-22, would delete a provision in state law mandating that an administrative warrant be obtained from a judge to inspect any of the nine licensed abortion clinics in Arizona. A warrant is not required to inspect other clinics and medical facilities.

The measure, which still must be approved by the state Senate and signed by Republican Governor Jan Brewer before it can become law, is the latest abortion-related restriction to be sought by conservatives in state legislatures across the United States.

Lawmakers in the southwestern U.S. state have taken steps to limit abortions, and a federal appeals court last year struck down as unconstitutional an Arizona 2012 law banning abortions from 20 weeks gestation, except in medical emergencies. Late-term abortions remain relatively rare.

If the surprise inspection measure is ultimately signed into law, Arizona would join 10 other states that allow for such surprise inspections, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit sexual health organization. Only one Republican voted against the bill.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "House approves warrantless abortion clinic inspections" by Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services 3/4/14

The 34-22 vote for HB 2284 came after almost an hour of debate about whether the legislation is needed and whether it is even legal. But in the end the majority concluded there was no reason for the special requirement for the Department of Health Services to get consent or a warrant for an abortion clinic when it does not need to do so for any other health facility.

“I call this bill ‘The Women’s Health Protection Act,’” said Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Peoria, sponsor of the measure that was crafted by the anti-abortion Center for Arizona Policy. Lesko called it “amazing’’ that only abortion clinics have managed to escape having unannounced inspections.

Rep. Justin Olson, R-Mesa, defended the legislation as the government performing its role of protecting women and children.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Suit filed to block new Arizona abortion regulations" by Cindy Carcamo, Los Angeles Times 3/5/14

Abortion providers have filed suit against Arizona to block a new rule that limits the use of medications to induce abortions.

Restrictions on similar medication-induced abortions have been enacted in other states and made their way through the courts with mixed results. Courts have ruled in favor of similar provisions in Ohio and Texas, while judges in Oklahoma and North Dakota have struck down such measures.

In Arizona, a 2012 law states that when an abortion doctor performs a medication abortion, the doctor must follow the Food and Drug Administration’s instructions provided on the drug label.

“It is a shame that when Planned Parenthood can’t win public opinion, they try to use the courts to impose their will and bail out their abortion business,” said Cathi Herrod, [The Center for Arizona Policy] president.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Planned Parenthood Sues to Violate FDA Protocols, Injure Women With Dangerous Abortion Drug" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 3/5/14

The abortion drug is responsible for the deaths of dozens of women worldwide, including several in the United States alone, and it has injured at least 1,100 women in the United States alone as of 2006 figures from the Food and Drug Administration. Yet, the abortion business has filed suit to void an Arizona law to require FDA protocols be followed when dispensing the dangerous abortion drug RU 486 (mifepristone).

The FDA, with no fanfare, released its April 2011 report showing 14 women in the United States alone have died from using the mifepristone abortion drug and 2,207 women have been injured by it.

The FDA figures also reveal that abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood are still misusing the abortion drug.

Despite the FDA indicating, “Administration of mifepristone and misoprostol is contraindicated in patients with confirmed or suspected ectopic pregnancy (a pregnancy outside the uterus,” the abortion drug was given to women in 58 cases where they had an ectopic pregnancy at that time.

An FDA panel eventually investigated the deaths and found that the vaginal, rather than oral, use of the abortion drug was likely contributing to the deaths. Planned Parenthood had been going against the FDA guidelines on using the abortion drug and changed its protocols to allow for oral use after women died at their facilities.

To read extensive documentation from the article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Taxpayers Want Prayer Back at Arizona School Board Meetings

Ohio Councilman Won't Stop Praying in Jesus' Name

Wisconsin atheists, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, have again invaded Ohio by threatening its citizens with a costly legal battle if prayers don't stop at the Cuyahoga Falls city council meetings.  In response, councilman Terry Mader told the 200 residents packing the council chambers that it's his right, as an American citizen, to pray to God Almighty according to his faith when speaking in a public meeting.

"If I, as a Christian, am embarrassed to share [Jesus'] name, then he is going to be embarrassed in recognizing me in my relationship with him."
-- Terry Mader, Councilman at City of Cuyahoga Falls

“Regardless of what some people believe, we were not founded to be secular.”
-- Rev. Chris McCombs, Broadman Baptist Church

For background, read Atheists Say Ohio Religious Liberty Bill is Dangerous and also read Saginaw, Michigan City Council Ignores Atheists' Threat as well as California Judge OKs Prayer at Eureka City Council

Also read of the myriad atheist lawsuits against Christians and prayer nationwide and read Atheists Threaten to Sue Every School in Tennessee and in Mississippi but admit they're Short on Lawyers to Sue ALL Christians



UPDATE 5/13/14: U.S. Supreme Court rules prayers to Jesus Christ OK at government meetings

-- From "Cuyahoga Falls City Council prayer ‘in Jesus’ name’ brings residents out for debate" by Gina Mace, Special to the Akron Beacon Journal 3/6/14

On Feb. 10, Council President Mary Ellen Pyke gave council members copies of a letter she received from the Freedom from Religion Foundation, suggesting that Mader’s overtly Christian prayer at a public meeting violates the separation of church and state.

The Rev. Thomas Bloom, pastor of Community of Believers, said he thinks it is a good thing for “those in government to remind themselves there is a God in heaven to whom we all must give account.”

The majority of Americans believe in God, Bloom said.

He urged City Council to stand firm, adding, “I promise you that you will not stand alone.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Cuyahoga Falls City Council hears opinions pro and con on prayer in Council meetings" by Steve Wiandt, Cuyahoga Falls News-Press 3/9/14

. . . Despite opinions expressed, City Council's chaplain said on March 6 he has no plans to change the way he prays at Council's next meeting March 10.

As a citizen, Mader said, his right to pray is protected by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Mader said when he prays in Council meetings he doesn't assume to represent everyone on Council. He said he has never said, "In Jesus' name we pray, amen," only, "In Jesus' name, or Christ's name, amen."

"Prayer is a fundamental right of every citizen of the United States of America, should they choose to do so," said Ted Shure of Cuyahoga Falls, president of Summit Christian School Board. "The members of the Freedom from Religion Organization are attempting to break this down. No one is forcing them to pray nor should they force us not to pray. The Organization has no vested interest in our community."

"While legislative prayer may offend some -- I acknowledge that -- it in no way violates the Constitution," said Chris McCombs, pastor of Broadman Baptist Church. "However the removal of prayer would do more than offend some … It would send a message that we won't stand on principle, but that we would cower to the threats of bullies."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

For further background, read Prayer at Civic Meetings Flourish Across America as more Citizens Rebel Against Atheist Threats

And also read of countless examples of citizens banding together to defy the atheists and pray in school and other local government bodies.

In addition, read Texas Law Tells Schools to Ignore Atheist Threats and read the long list of states enacting laws to bring prayer back to schools.

Fox Fires Sports Commentator for Being Christian

One day after Fox Sports Southwest put Craig James on TV, network executives at Fox Sports fired the former football running back because they didn't agree with his 18-month-old public comments in favor of natural marriage.  In response, attorneys at Liberty Institute, representing James, says that the Texas Workforce Commission has charged Fox Sports Southwest with discrimination, and has begun an investigation.

"I think [homosexuality is] a choice, I do. I think that you have to make that choice. … they are going to have to answer to the Lord for their actions."
-- Craig James, in 2012

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

San Antonio to Ban Christian Workers, Promotes Gay Agenda

Christians Cause Workplace Conflict, So Silence Them

Schools Fire Christian Bus Drivers for Praying

President Obama's DOJ Forces Employees to Celebrate Homosexuality

Christians Can Forget Having Any Career at NASA

Gays & Atheists Demand Air Force Fire Evangelicals

-- From "Craig James’ discrimination claim to be investigated by state agency" by David Barron, Houston Chronicle 3/6/14

James, the former high school, college and NFL running back who in 2012 ran in the Republican Primary for the Senate seat now held by Ted Cruz, alleges the network discriminated based on his religious beliefs by firing him after a one-day on-air stint in August 2012.

James made comments during his Senate campaign indicating his opposition to gay marriage, and he alleges that statements by the network regarding his dismissal support his belief that he was fired on religious grounds. He told the Associated Press last week the incident has left him “radioactive” for future broadcasting jobs.

Fox has said that James’ hiring by the regional network was not “properly vetted” and that his position as a “polarizing figure” in the world of Texas sports led to the decision not to retain him.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Craig James: Fox Sports firing was ‘sucker punch’" by Nomaan Merchant, Associated Press 2/28/14

One day after his first appearance on Fox Sports Southwest, James says he was fired and then read a spokesman’s comment online that the network questioned “how Craig’s statements would play in our human resources department.”

“That’s like a sucker punch,” James said Thursday. “For someone to call you and offer you a job, praise your talents, your credentials, put you on the air the next day and fire you the following the day: That’s like some kind of mean joke.”

“Craig James is a polarizing figure in the college sports community and the decision not to use him in our college football coverage was based on the perception that he abused a previous on-air position to further a personal agenda,” the network said in a statement Thursday.

James was a longtime color commentator for ESPN who quit to run for U.S. Senate two years ago in Texas, where he grew up and starred at SMU. He finished fourth in the Republican primary.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Fox Sports Southwest Charged With Discrimination for Firing Craig James Over Homosexuality Remarks" by Melissa Barnhart, Christian Post Reporter 3/7/14

During a Thursday "Washington Watch" interview with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, James and his attorney, Hiram Sasser of the Liberty Institute, discussed their thoughts about the TWC's decision and their next steps in this case.

Sasser explained to Perkins that Fox Sports now has to respond to the TWC's discrimination charge for firing James, and added that either the state commission will sue the sports network, or they will give Liberty Institute the opportunity to follow through with a lawsuit for religious discrimination.

"I have two stacks of documents Fox Sports has provided us. One stack of documents supports our claim that they engaged in unlawful religious discrimination," Sasser said. "The other stack of documents I can't discuss the contents of because they're marked 'confidential.' They're secret documents that Fox Sports doesn't want you to see. But I really like those documents and can't wait to use those in the courtroom."

He continued, "I don't know why Fox Sports is continuing to fight this. Every day that goes by the cost of getting out of this discrimination claim is going up for Fox Sports."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Obama Wants an End to Abstinence, Favors Anal Sex

In his 2015 budget proposal to Congress, President Obama has eliminated grants for abstinence education funding. In contrast, the president proposes substantial funding for a variety of pro-homosexual programs including encouragement of deviant sexual behavior, such as anal sex, that is the main cause of the HIV/AIDS pandemic -- a disease that could virtually be wiped out through abstinent behavior.

“We are pleased that the budget eliminates funding for abstinence-only sex education . . . We look forward to working with Congress to see [the president's alternative sex education] investments protected.”
-- Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America

UPDATE 2/8/15: President Obama Floods Gay Agenda with Taxpayers' Money

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Abstinence Education Effective, Fed Study Shows

Abstinent Teens the Norm, Moral Sex-Ed Works: Study

Anal Sex is Main Cause of Spread of HIV/AIDS

Fictional 'Safe Sex' - Government Losing War on STDs

Pandemic Sex Diseases: Permanent Cure Dismissed

HIV Cure: False Hope to Victims, Money to Others

Homosexual Disease Paid by All Americans: ObamaCare

UPDATE 10/17/14: President Obama Pays Pre-teens to Learn Anal Sex in Hawaii

UPDATE 6/1/14 - ObamaNation: Alters of Worship to Sexual Deviancy

UPDATE 5/28/14: Abortionists' Sex Ed Banned from Louisiana Schools

-- From "Obama's Budget Proposal Slashes Obamacare Abstinence Grants" by Steven Nelson, U.S. News & World Report 3/5/14

The proposed budget, unveiled Tuesday, would also discontinue $5 million in annual funding for the Competitive Abstinence Education program, which provides grants to specific pro-abstinence programs. That funding was approved for two years in the fiscal year 2012 budget.

. . . Obama does not support abstinence-only education. The issue has been a budgeting tug-of-war since he took office, with the president's effort to eliminate such spending hindered by Republicans in Congress.

The block grant program – originally funded by the 1996 Welfare Reform Act – was eliminated in the fiscal year 2010 budget, passed when Democrats held a majority in the House of Representatives. But Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, successfully resurrected the grant program months later by attaching it to the health care law in committee.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "President Obama wants to ax funding for abstinence from sex education" by Jennifer Liberto, CNNMoney 3/5/14

By cutting the abstinence grant, the country would save $5 million. It's among a list of "wasteful spending" that the President would slash if he gets his way on the budget.

In his latest budget, the President proposed 136 cuts, yielding $17 billion in savings. It was the fewest number of cuts proposed since he first took office in 2009. By contrast, Obama pledged 215 cuts with $25 billion in savings just last year.

. . . More than $175 million is spent on other [non-abstinent-only] sex education programs.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "President Barack Obama's FY 2015 budget includes LGBT funding" posted at San Diego Gay & Lesbian News 3/5/14

The Budget invests $2.3 billion in the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program to provide treatment and care completion services for people living with HIV, which includes $900 million for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program to ensure that people living with HIV have access to life-saving antiretroviral medications. The Budget also invests $1.1 billion for CDC HIV/AIDS, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Tuberculosis, and Viral Hepatitis activities, and aligns HIV funding with the epidemic by requiring public health departments to target resources where the epidemic is most concentrated.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Obama Proposes Eliminating Funding for Abstinence Education in 2015 Budget" by Penny Starr, CNSNews.com 3/6/14

In the “Cuts, Consolidations, and Savings” portion of the budget, it shows that the $5 million funding to Health and Human Services (HHS) through its Title V Maternal and Child Health Program that was included in the 2014 budget is not part of Obama’s latest budget.

Patrick Fagan, director of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute at the Family Research Council, told CNSNews.com that cutting abstinence education programs encourages sexual activity in young people.

"If you want increased alienation between men and women, between mothers and fathers, you will eliminate abstinence and work to increase the number of sexual partners our adolescents have,” Fagan said. “If you want society to gradually fall apart, you will work to remove all connections between sexual intercourse and marriage.

“Chastity is the foundational virtue of society, because on it is built the stability of the family. On it is built the stability of marriage,” he said. “President Obama in his budget is clearly indicating he does not want our young people to be chaste, nor our future families to be stable, nor our next generation to have both mother and father at home.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "President Obama’s Budget Eliminates Abstinence Education Programs" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 3/5/14

President Barack Obama’s budget sends hundreds of millions of dollars to the Planned Parenthood abortion business — but that’s not the only concern it presents for pro-life advocates.

“By eliminating SRA (sexual risk avoidance) abstinence programs in his budget, the President has, once again chosen to ignore the wishes of parents and the approach that helps youth avoid all risk associated with teen sex. This is truly unfortunate, but not at all surprising. President Obama has sought to cut or eliminate SRA abstinence programs each year of his presidency. This – despite a growing body of research showing its effectiveness,” stated Valerie Huber, President of NAEA.

Huber tells LifeNews Obama’s FY 2015 budget will only increase the current 1:16 disparity between SRA abstinence education and so-called "comprehensive" sex education. She says that is despite the fact that nearly 7 in 10 Democratic parents would like to see more equality in funding for abstinence education and almost 60% specifically oppose the president’s efforts to eliminate SRA funding.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read about President Obama's Homosexual Indoctrination Month in Schools Nationwide and read Alabama School Doesn't Back Gay Agenda, Obama Investigates

In addition, read the history of President Obama's Gay Agenda for Schools

Pope Open to Homosexual Civil Unions, Media Report

Once again, the mainstream media leaped to put words in Pope Francis' mouth.  Numerous reports explicitly claim that the Pope supports same-sex civil unions as well as legally-sanctioned heterosexual cohabitation, when he never said any such thing, and again media are reporting that the Pope is evolving toward women clergy.

"I see a glimmer of hope that I'm hoping will open up into a floodlight into this conversation . . ."
-- Jon O'Brien, president of Catholics for Choice

For background, read Liberal Media Say Pope Francis OKs Gay & Women Priests but actually the Pope Said the Gay Agenda is the Work of the Devil, and also the Pope Disappoints Liberals by Opposing 'Gay Adoption.'

Also read Pope's New Spanish Cardinal Says 'Gay Gene' is a Defect

In addition, read Pope Francis Decries Abortion; Vatican Says Media Distort Him

-- From "Pope Francis: Church could support same-sex civil unions" by CNN, posted at WPIX-TV11 (NY) 3/5/14

Pope Francis reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s opposition to gay marriage on Wednesday, but suggested in a newspaper interview that it could support same-sex civil unions.

For instance, civil unions provide financial security to cohabitating couples, “as for instance in medical care,” the Pope said in a wide-ranging interview published Wednesday in Corriere della Sera, an Italian daily.

A number of Catholic bishops have supported civil unions for gay couples, including Pope Francis when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires in 2010, according to reports in National Catholic Reporter and The New York Times.

On the role of women in the church, an issue of particular concern to Catholics in the United States, the Pope hinted that changes could be in the works.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From  "Did Pope Francis open the door to same-sex civil unions?" by Joshua Normanm, CBS News 3/5/14

Pope Francis has famously declared a cessation of hostilities in the culture wars on same-sex marriage, contraception, and abortion that had defined the Catholic Church for much of the modern era.

On Wednesday, he signaled a new direction in that regard when discussing civil unions in a short but wide-ranging interview . . . he explained why he thought civil unions were created in the first place. . . . in a translation of the interview provided by John Thavis, the former Rome bureau chief for Catholic News Services (CNS.)

The Vatican has as recently as January said the pope and the Catholic Church are not open to same-sex civil unions, and Thavis told CBS News the pope's wording was deliberately vague in the most recent interview.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Pope, in interview, suggests church could tolerate some civil unions" by Francis X. Rocca, Catholic News Service 3/5/14

"Matrimony is between a man and a woman," the pope said, but moves to "regulate diverse situations of cohabitation (are) driven by the need to regulate economic aspects among persons, as for instance to assure medical care." Asked to what extent the church could understand this trend, he replied: "It is necessary to look at the diverse cases and evaluate them in their variety."

Asked if the church's teachings on sexual and medical ethics represented "non-negotiable values," a formulation used by Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis said he had "never understood the expression 'non-negotiable values.'"

"Values are values, period," he said. "I cannot say that, among the fingers of a hand, there is one less useful than another. That is why I cannot understand in what sense there could be negotiable values."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Catholic Church on Homosexual Acts: ‘Under No Circumstances Can They Be Approved’" by Michael W. Chapman, CNSNews.com 3/5/14

When asked how the Church could address the issue, Pope Francis said, “It is necessary to look at the diverse cases and evaluate them in their variety.”  The Pope did not say that civil unions – “diverse situations of cohabitation” – were impermissible, but that the “diverse cases” could be evaluated “in their variety.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that “homosexual persons are called to chastity.” (2359) The Catechism further says, “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” (2357)

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Women Could Have Greater Role in Church, Says Pope" by Deborah Ball, Wall Street Journal 3/5/14

The Vatican could soon make significant changes to the role of women in the Catholic Church and to its approach to divorcées, Pope Francis said in a newspaper interview.

Some Vatican experts have raised the possibility of the pope appointing women to senior positions in the Vatican bureaucracy, perhaps as the head of one of its powerful departments.

But the pope suggested even bigger changes could be in store, with a senior cardinal now consulting female experts in considering possible options.

Some church leaders advocate making women deacons, ordained ministers who can assist at Mass or perform baptisms, although the pope made no reference to such a possibility.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Pope Francis Cracks Down on American Liberal Nuns, Priests

Parents Unnecessary, Homosexualists Argue in Court

Because the Bible has become irrelevant, and even despised in the media portrayal of America, to gain public favor, defenders of natural marriage often focus their arguments on the state's responsibility regarding children. In the on-going lawsuit to negate Michigan voters' marriage amendment, Gay Agenda advocates intend to dispel any notion that children need a mother and a father.

For background, read White House Says Kids Don't Need Mom, 2 Dads OK and also read Study: Lesbians Never Abuse Kids as well as Homosexual Judge Says Children Don't Need Parents

In addition, read the Harvard study: Demise of Natural Family Counters Upward Mobility

UPDATE 3/22/14: Suddenly, 'Gay Marriages' Commence in Michigan

-- From "Dueling experts debate data in Mich. gay marriage trial" by Tresa Baldas, Detroit Free Press 3/4/14

"Children born into a married couple have better outcomes right at the start of life. This gap has shrunk over time, but has continued to exist over decades," [Brigham Young University economist Joseph Price] said.

Children raised by married heterosexual parents, he said, are 35% more likely to be making normal progress in school than kids raised by same-sex couples.

"This is statistically significant," Price said, noting children of same-sex couples are also 15% more likely to be held back in school than children raised in traditional family settings.

Price contradicted the prior testimony of Stanford sociologist Michael Rosenfeld, who last week said that children raised by same-sex parents suffer no disadvantage when compared with other kids, according to his research.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Professor says Michigan should move slowly on gay marriage, cites his study of young adults" by Ed White, Associated Press 3/4/14

University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus testified for more than three hours as a witness for the state of Michigan, which is defending a ban on gay marriage. The constitutional amendment, approved by voters in 2004, is being challenged by two Detroit-area nurses [April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse] in a rare trial.

Regnerus was the leader of a study that screened thousands of people, ages 18 to 39, and found roughly 250 who said they grew up in a house where a mom or dad eventually had a same-sex relationship.

He found they were more likely to have problems — welfare dependence, less education, marijuana use — than young adults from stable families led by heterosexuals. But he later acknowledged that his study didn't include children raised by same-sex couples in a stable relationship.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

For background, read the Regnerus Study: Gay Parenting Harms Kids

From "Defense of Michigan's same-sex marriage ban rests on scholar scorned by peers" by Brian Dickerson, Detroit Free Press Columnist 3/4/14

On the day he debuted as the star witness in defense of Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage, [Mark Regnerus,] a University of Texas sociologist was denounced by his employer for peddling junk science.

[In a statement, University of Texas sociology department chairwoman Christine] Williams noted that Regnerus’ conclusions about same-sex parents had been similarly rejected by the 14,000-member American Sociological Association, which decreed that Regnerus’ research was “fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds.”

Under cross-examination Tuesday, Regnerus stoically acknowledged the sting of his peers’ disavowal.

“It’s regrettable,” he said, looking like the last kid left standing against the schoolhouse wall after his classmates had chosen teams for a pick-up game. “I guess they just want to distance themselves from me.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Statement from the Chair Regarding Professor Regnerus" by Christine L. Williams, University of Texas 3/3/14

Like all faculty, Dr. Regnerus has the right to pursue his areas of research and express his point of view.  However, Dr. Regnerus’ opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology Department of The University of Texas at Austin. . . . findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGTQ partners and their families.

The Sociology Department at The University of Texas at Austin . . . actively promotes and supports diversity among our faculty and student populations.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

For further background, read how activist judges across America are forbidding voters the right to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

And read Lawless Obama Administration: States Should Violate Oath for 'Gay Marriage'

Also read American Decline: Obama's Gay Agenda vs. Christians

GOP Coalition For 'Gay Marriage' in Appeals Court

Twenty prominent Republicans, including former U.S. senators Alan Simpson of Wyoming and Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas, are filing a document with the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals saying that citizens of Utah and Oklahoma had no constitutional basis to define marriage as one man and one woman.  These RINOs go further by arguing that government-sanctioned deviant sexual behavior is good for American society.

"Marriage is strengthened and its benefits, importance to society, and the social stability of the family unit are promoted" by same-sex marriage.
-- Republicans for "Gay Marriage" tell court

For background, read how activist judges across America are forbidding voters the right to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Also read Lawless Obama Administration: States Should Violate Oath for 'Gay Marriage'

For further background, read GOP Strategy: Dump Old Uneducated Christian Voters and also read GOP Funds Pro-abortion Homosexual Candidates as well as Biblical Beliefs Unacceptable to Illinois GOP Leaders

UPDATE 6/26/14: Tenth Circuit Court upholds rulings favoring same-sex "marriage" -- GOP wins!!

-- From "Western U.S. Republicans to urge appeals court to back gay marriage" by Eric M. Johnson, Reuters 3/4/14

The Republican group cited constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law, proper limits to government's role in citizens' personal lives, and individual freedom, among other reasons.

. . . 17 states plus the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriage, including eight states where it became legal in 2013.

Utah and Oklahoma would be added to that list if federal court rulings overturning gay marriage bans on constitutional grounds are upheld by the U.S. Appeals Court in Denver. Hearings are slated for April.

Rulings there could render same-sex marriage legal in states within the court's circuit - namely Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming, although an opposing decision by the U.S. Supreme Court could bar them.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Republicans From the West Give Support for Gay Marriage" by Erik Eckholm, New York Times 3/3/14

The brief was the latest sign of widening cracks in Republican opposition to same-sex marriage, even deep in the country’s conservative heartland.

Sean Gallagher, a lawyer and Republican Party activist in Denver who helped prepare the brief, said many Republicans were rethinking their positions. “The themes of liberty and freedom resonate especially well in the West,” said Mr. Gallagher, who was chief counsel in Colorado for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign in 2012.

In December, a federal court in Utah overturned the state’s amendment restricting marriage to a man and a woman. In January, a federal court in Oklahoma struck down that state’s ban on gay marriage.

In Nevada, the state prevailed in court in 2012 in its defense of marriage restrictions. The gay and lesbian plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, and last month Nevada’s Republican governor, Brian Sandoval, agreed to withdraw from the case, saying that defense of a same-sex marriage ban was not legally tenable.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read American Decline: Obama's Gay Agenda vs. Christians as well as Homosexualists Admit Goal to End Religious Liberty

American Decline: Obama's Gay Agenda vs Christians

As most church leaders model cowardice, and their flocks dutifully follow, ravenous wolves are poised to devour America's First Amendment religious liberty. Because millions of Christians refuse to risk the inevitable persecution of standing on the foundation built by the God-fearing framers of the Constitution, nine unelected jurists will soon outlaw the Great Commission.

UPDATE 9/29/15 - President Obama Speech: Gay Agenda Trumps Christianity

UPDATE 7/28/15: Gay Agenda Destroys Everything it Contacts

UPDATE 6/27/15: President Obama's Gay 'Untied' States of America

UPDATE 2/18/15: President Obama Ignores Hate Crimes Against U.S. Christians

UPDATE 2/11/15: President Obama = Liar in Chief RE 'Gay Marriage'

UPDATE 2/6/15: President Obama Compares Christians to Islamic Terrorists

UPDATE 2/1/15: Mrs. Obama Thanks Hollywood for Gay Indoctrination

UPDATE 12/25/14: President Obama's Christmas — Behold, a Message is Born

UPDATE 10/19/14: Idaho Pastors Face Fines, Jail for Refusing 'Gay Wedding'

UPDATE 7/15/14: President Obama Favors the One Percenters (Homosexuals)

UPDATE 7/5/14: Obama Provokes Second 'In God We Trust' Movement

UPDATE 4/24/15: Congressional Democrat leader Steny Hoyer Says Same-Sex Couples Are Endowed ‘By God’ With Right to Marry (video):

For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:

Senator Ted Cruz Says Gay Agenda Ends Christian Liberty

Homosexualists Admit Goal to End Religious Liberty: Arizona Bill

Republican Party Strategy: Dump Old Uneducated Christian Voters

Lawless Obama Administration: States Should Violate Oath for Gays

President Obama's Pentagon Says Following Jesus' Command is a Court Martial Offense

Supreme Court Repeatedly Enables Gay Agenda

Christians Snooze as Same-sex 'Marriage' Sweeps Nation

America Going to Hell; Christians Lose Convictions

UPDATE 8/15/14: Study Finds Pastors Conceal Culture Truth to be Successful

-- From "Who's behind 'religious freedom' push? The answer is hard to find" by Greg Botelho, CNN 2/27/14

Arizona's divisive SB1026 -- which supporters claim protected religious freedom, and critics say served as cover for businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians -- didn't come from nowhere. . . . But from where, or from whom, did the impetus come?

It took time to hash out among both state lawmakers and interest groups. In this case, advocates from the Arizona Center for Policy and Alliance Defending Freedom -- whose website says it "coordinates legal efforts (for) Christian legal and policy organizations" all across the United States and in 31 countries -- were among those who played a part in crafting the legislation.

But from where, or from whom, did the impetus come? And who paid for the Arizona push and similar ones in a host of other states?

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Georgia lawmakers pushing for religious liberty bills" by Jon Gillooly, Marietta Daily Journal 3/2/14

. . . state Rep. Sam Teasley (R-Marietta) and state Sen. Joshua McKoon (R-Columbus) [say] their religious liberty bills filed this session . . . have been ripped by critics for targeting gay people, a charge the lawmakers deny.

The Georgia Municipal Association and the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia have also opposed the bills. McKoon said cities and counties have been able to enact rules and policies hostile to religious liberty.

Major companies such as Delta Air Lines have wrongly denounced the bills, Teasley said he believes, because they haven’t bothered to take the time to understand them.

Mike Griffin, lobbyist for the Georgia Baptist Convention, said a conversation is underway among conservative groups about conducting an economic boycott of companies such as Delta and Home Depot for opposing the bills.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "31 states have heightened religious freedom protections" by Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post 3/1/14

. . . 18 of which passed state laws based on the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act [RFRA]. The protections in an additional 13 states came through court rulings.

"These state RFRAs were enacted in response to Supreme Court decisions that had nothing to do with gay rights or same-sex marriage," explained University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock in an e-mail. "And the state court decisions interpreting their state constitutions arose in all sorts of contexts, mostly far removed from  gay rights or same-sex marriage. There were cases about Amish buggies, hunting moose for native Alaskan funeral rituals, an attempt to take a church  building by eminent domain, landmark laws that prohibited churches from modifying their buildings – all sorts of diverse conflicts between religious practice and pervasive regulation."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Kansas Senate balks at religious liberty bill" by Brad Cooper, The Kansas City Star 2/13/14

Senate President Susan Wagle [R] took the unusual step Thursday night of issuing a statement saying the bill — which has drawn an avalanche of national criticism — didn’t have the support of a majority of Republicans in her chamber.

The Kansas House passed the bill Wednesday, spurring a national outcry that it was tantamount to state-sanctioned discrimination. The critics gained traction on social media, where a Facebook page set up opposing the measure received nearly 40,000 “likes” by late Thursday.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Kansas Senate Refuses to Consider 'Religious Liberty' Bill for Gay Marriage" by Katherine Weber, Christian Post Reporter 2/20/14

After House Bill 2453 passed the House, Senate Vice President Jeff King (R-Independence) announced that the Senate would not be considering the bill, saying briefly that the bill was "kaput." King went on to assure concerned Kansas residents that religious exemptions regarding same-sex marriage will be addressed next month during Senate hearings.

Those supporting the bill argued in response that although the legislation was vilified as being discriminatory and ultimately killed, it is still necessary for legislators in the state to pursue protection of religious liberty as the possibility of same-sex marriage legalization looms in the future.

When the bill first passed the House Committee, Gov. Sam Brownback said he was a "strong proponent and supporter for religious liberty."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Indiana dips toe in national debate over religious liberty, discrimination" by Dan Carden, (Northwest Indiana) NWI Times 3/3/14

It started innocently enough, according to House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis.

Indiana Wesleyan University, a Christian college with a Merrillville location that hires employees on the basis of religion — as permitted by federal law — wanted to continue receiving state workforce training grants.

So state Rep. Eric Turner, R-Cicero, suggested adding a provision to Senate Bill 367 that would permit religious entities to receive state contracts even if they discriminate in hiring based on religion. The proposal was approved 6-5 Monday by the House Ways and Means Committee.

Faced with the prospect of Indiana being lumped with Arizona on the religious discrimination issue, Bosma sent Senate Bill 367 back to the Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday. The panel deleted the provision allowing state contractors to discriminate in hiring based on religion.

"It's not a productive discussion right now given what's happening in some other states," Bosma said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "The Citizens United of the Culture Wars" by Gabriel Arana, The American Prospect 2/28/14

The failure of these anti-gay discrimination bills amounts to a stern rebuke to the religious right, which sees defeat on the horizon in the gay-marriage fight. . . .

The ease of this win came as a surprise of some gay-rights supporters, accustomed to waging years-long guerrilla warfare in states across the country. . . . Marci A. Hamilton, a professor of law at Cordoza Law School who advises lawmakers on Church-State issues, says social conservatives fundamentally misread the public's appetite for such laws. "I don't expect these laws to make it and I don't expect there to be much more on this issue,” Hamilton says. "The window for getting laws to discriminate against gays and lesbians has essentially closed.”

. . . The challenge to the contraception mandate in Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby, scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court next month, shares the same rationale as the Arizona law: That for-profit companies and employees should be exempt from laws that conflict with their religious beliefs. "It's really important to connect what's going on in Arizona with the Hobby Lobby case," says Sally Steenland, director of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. "It's giving religious liberty to for-profit corporations, which has never been done and has no precedent, and allowing them to pick and choose which laws they want to obey."

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "Our legal heritage favors religious freedom" by Dwight G. Duncan, University of Massachusetts Law school, posted at the Boston Globe 3/2/14

The argument has been made that since corporations don’t go to heaven or hell, family businesses should not be able to freely exercise religion. This argument is flawed in many ways. It also ignores our own legal history, which is replete with examples where corporate charters have indeed been legal vehicles for the practice of religion.

During the colonial period, those in dissent from the established Anglican Church were able to use existing civil and secular legal entities to create a space to practice their religion in accord with the dictates of their consciences.

In Massachusetts, the colonial Legislature in 1692 approved a law mandating that each town use general taxation to provide for an “able, learned orthodox minister” of the Congregational church. In 1728, the Legislature granted an exemption from taxes to support local Congregational ministers to Baptists and Quakers, but they had to get a special certificate denoting their status from their town clerks.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Supreme Court Rules Bible as 'Hate Speech' in Canada as well as European Union High Court Rules Gay Agenda Trumps Christianity

In addition, read Corporation Opposes Gay Agenda, Causes Media Storm

For further background, read President Obama Raises Gay Agenda above Religious Liberty

And read how President Obama, et. al., have mounted a massive Gay Agenda assault on America's First Amendment religious liberty through the military, and the Dept. of Justice, and the court system nationwide.  For example, read about President Obama's hypocritical speech at his recent annual National Prayer Breakfast.

UPDATE 3/28/14: American decline is result of President Obama's Gay Agenda & equality utopianism (video:)

Click for FOX News video

Can YOUR Child Pass the Test -- to be Born?

With each new money-generating medical procedure to determine the "health" of an unborn child, more babies are selectively killed in the womb, and due to testing errors, many of the aborted children were certainly perfectly healthy.  However, even if every test were 100% accurate, how high will the bar be raised?  How many babies will "make the grade" and allowed to be born?

For background, read $3 Million Awarded to Down's Baby Parents over Failed Prenatal Test as well as Abortionist Kills Healthy (Wrong) Fetus Instead of Down's Twin

Also read Designer Babies Available Upon Request

-- From "Latest DNA test for Down’s syndrome is 10 times more accurate" by Ally Stackhouse, The Westside Story 3/1/14

The importance of Pre-natal testing for chromosomal aberrations in the body has been emphasized in a study conducted by the New England Journal of Medicine. The latest DNA test, which has been developed by researchers to screen Down syndrome and other related diseases are dramatically accurate. The new test is based on DNA sequencing and it will be used to identify Down syndrome and other related diseases.

This genetic test is being marketed by Illumina Inc. of San Diego, California which also had footed the bill for the research. A crack team of researchers have perfected this genetic test which gave far less false results among the 1,941 women and the results were compared with the conventional standard serum screening methods. The tests were conducted as early as 10 week of pregnancy.

The latest research can open up a lucrative $6 billion market to biotechnology companies which are already selling these tests. Such tests usually carry a price tag of $700 to $2500.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "DNA blood tests show promise for better prenatal screening" by The Associated Press 2/27/14

[The new test] would let couples decide sooner whether to have an abortion or to prepare for a major medical problem. It also might cut down on the 200,000 invasive tests like amniocentesis done each year in the United States to diagnose or rule out problems in a fetus.

Current screening methods are imprecise. Ultrasounds and various blood tests can hint at a problem but don't directly test for one.

The next step is diagnostic testing — amniocentesis, like a needle biopsy to collect fetal cells, or chorionic villus sampling, which takes a snip of the placenta.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Prenatal DNA Tests Should be New Standard, Study Suggests" by Susan Young, MIT Technology Review 2/26/14

All pregnant women—not just those with high-risk pregnancies—should be offered a new, DNA-based screening test for Down syndrome, say researchers.

A pregnant woman’s blood contains bits of DNA from her fetus along with her own. By sequencing this mix of DNA, scientists can determine whether or not her fetus has an abnormal number of chromosomes, such as the extra copy of chromosome 21 that causes Down syndrome. Doctors are already using this finding to screen women who are at high-risk for having pregnancies with this kind of complication (say because they are over the age of 35, see “Medical Society Approval for Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing”). . . .

But so far, these tests are not used to screen the broader population of pregnant women. . . .

For now, if women want the DNA-based tests, they will have to pay for it themselves as insurers don’t yet cover it for low-risk pregnancies. The test have list prices range from $1,200 to $2,700 says Richard Rava, chief scientific officer of Verinata, the Illumina division responsible for the prenatal test.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "The Market For DNA-Sequencing-Based Down Syndrome Tests Could Exceed $6 Billion" by Matthew Herper, Forbes Staff 2/28/14

Each year in the U.S. there are 6.6 million pregnancies and 4 million births, according the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. The list prices of the tests, which are sold by four different companies, range from $700 to $2500. Assuming that pricing settles in the middle of that range and that there are 5 million women who choose to have the test, that would be a $8 billion market.

Such a market expansion could be important to all of the companies that make the tests . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read Arizona Cuts Time to Kill Disabled Unborn, Critics Complain

What happens if few fetuses "make the grade?"  Read about the diminishing birth rate in the U.S. and worldwide

Lead Abortionist Asks, Who Cares When Life Begins?

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said in a TV interview, concerning the oft-debated abortion issue of when life begins, "I don't know that it's really relevant."  She went on to say that her kids' lives began at the time of delivery.

Did you know that Planned Parenthood Kills a Baby Every 94 Seconds?  And do you know how they get a steady stream of customers?

Keep in mind that Taxpayers Provide 46% of Planned Parenthood's $Billion$ and yet Planned Parenthood's Goal is to Defraud Taxpayers



-- From "Planned Parenthood president: Start of life not ‘really relevant’ to abortion discussions" by Douglas Ernst, The Washington Times 2/28/14

“It is not something that I feel is really part of this conversation,” Cecile Richards said while appearing on Fusion’s “America with Jorge Ramos” on Thursday, Twitchy reported.

Mrs. Richards went on to say that she didn’t think Planned Parenthood should have to answer a question that “will be debated through the centuries.”

Mr. Ramos, a journalist, was persistent, asking her “Why would it be so controversial for you to say when you believe life starts?”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Life Begins at Delivery, Planned Parenthood President Says" by Napp Nazworth, Christian Post Reporter 2/28/14

Richards at first dodged the question several times . . .

Richards then answered that the question is not part of the conversation about whether abortion should be legal. Every woman needs to make their own decision and Planned Parenthood wants them to have "all their options for health care."

"For me, I'm the mother of three children. For me, life began when I delivered them. They've been probably the most important thing in my life ever since. But that was my own personal decision."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Planned Parenthood Prez Cecile Richards: When life begins not ‘really relevant’ to abortion" by Ben Johnson, LifeSiteNews.com 2/28/14

Richards' refusal to answer the question echoes Barack Obama's 2008 reply to Rick Warren stating that determining the moment when life begins is “above my pay grade.” However, biologists and embryologists say the fact that life begins at conception is settled science.

“At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun,” according to the 1976 Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. The 1993 book Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects says fertilization “represents the beginning of a human being.” Numerous other textbooks reveal the same conclusion.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Cecile Richards: When life begins isn’t relevant to the conversation" by Cassy Fiano, Live Action News 2/28/14

. . . And why would the science of embryology, pregnancy, and reproduction be irrelevant to the conversation? Of course it’s irrelevant for Richards, whose livelihood relies on women believing that life can begin at conception, or at 12 weeks, or 20 weeks, at birth, or whenever you feel like it does.

If science were to definitively say that life begins at conception (which it does), and Richards were to admit that, then she’s admitting that her business is one of snuffing out a life for pay. It makes her a glorified hit man in heels. The problem is that the science of embryology and reproduction has answered that question — life begins at conception — and the question is not over whether or not the baby is alive, but whether killing this life is acceptable.

To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.

From "Life Begins at Fertilization" posted at Princeton.edu

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M?ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]

"I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]

To read more scientific references, CLICK HERE.

Some Republicans, such as Newt Gingrich not sure when life begins, but according to one governor, The Democrats' Life Mission is to Kill the Unborn

Just days after taking office, President Obama Chose Death for the Unborn

In addition, read President Obama Asks God to Bless Planned Parenthood and also read Abortion Rate Declines, Democrats Want More Access as well as Bishops Warn Voting for Pro-abortion Democrats is 'Grave Sin'