The program conducted last year [to test children for sexually transmitted diseases,] at eight high schools found that 13 percent of about 3,000 students tested positive for an STD, mostly gonorrhea or chlamydia, according to the D.C. Department of Health.
-- From "D.C. to Offer STD Tests In Every High School" by Darryl Fears and Nelson Hernandez, Washington Post Staff Writers 8/5/09
D.C. school officials are planning to offer tests for sexually transmitted diseases to all high school students in the coming school year, expanding a pilot program that uncovered a significant number of infected children.
The expansion places D.C. public schools in the vanguard of a growing number of urban school districts that test adolescents for STDs. About 12,000 students attend public high schools in the District.
STDs are of particular concern to AIDS activists because they increase the risk of contracting HIV. The testing program was hailed in a report being released Wednesday by the D.C. Appleseed Center for Law and Justice as a positive step in the city's effort to arrest its growing AIDS rate, which is the highest in the nation and is considered an epidemic. Half of the city's cases of chlamydia and gonorrhea are among adolescents.
The program, which has been discussed by the D.C. school board, requires students to attend a lecture about STDs, but they can opt out of providing a urine sample for the test. All 50 states and the District allow minors older than 12 to be screened for STDs without parental consent.
In a 2007 study by the D.C. public school system, 60 percent of high school students and 30 percent of middle school students reported having had intercourse. Twenty percent of the high school students said they had had sex with four or more partners, and 12 percent of the middle school students said they had had three or more partners.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Psychologists Suggest Homosexuals Change Churches
The American Psychological Association (APA), at its annual convention today, issued a statement recommending that health professionals not suggest to homosexual clients that they might achieve opposite attractions, but rather that, if they are Christian, they should seek a church that endorses their homosexual behavior.
-- From "Psychologists repudiate gay-to-straight therapy" by David Crary, Associated Press 8/5/09
In a resolution adopted by the APA's governing council, and in an accompanying report, the association issued its most comprehensive repudiation of "reparative therapy" — a concept espoused by a small but persistent group of therapists, often allied with religious conservatives, who maintain gays can change.
No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the resolution, adopted by a 125-4 vote. The APA said some research suggests that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.
Instead of seeking such change, the APA urged therapists to consider multiple options — that could range from celibacy to switching churches — for helping clients live spiritually rewarding lives in instances where their sexual orientation and religious faith conflict.
The APA had criticized reparative therapy in the past, but a six-member task force added weight to this position by examining 83 studies on sexual orientation change conducted since 1960. Its report was endorsed by the APA's governing council in Toronto, where the 150,000-member association's annual meeting is being held this weekend.
"Practitioners can assist clients through therapies that do not attempt to change sexual orientation, but rather involve acceptance, support and identity exploration and development without imposing a specific identity outcome," the report says.
The APA task force took as a starting point the belief that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality, not a disorder, and that it nonetheless remains stigmatized in ways that can have negative consequences.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
The below is from: ORLANDO, Fla., Aug 05, 2009 PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX
Exodus International, the largest worldwide ministry to those in conflict with their sexuality and faith, says this report acknowledges religious diversity and hopes to see more efforts to ensure this in the future.
While Exodus does not fully agree with the APA's criticisms of clinical techniques such as reparative therapy and its view of sexual orientation change, the report does recognize that some choose to live their lives in congruence with religious values. The report also encourages therapists to avoid imposing a specific outcome on clients.
Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International, says that not only is faith is an essential part of life for many gay men and women, it is almost always the motivating factor behind their decision to leave it behind and that many in Exodus have experienced a shift in attractions along the way. Chambers just released his second book, Leaving Homosexuality, which clarifies realistic expectations involved in this process.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Psychologists repudiate gay-to-straight therapy" by David Crary, Associated Press 8/5/09
In a resolution adopted by the APA's governing council, and in an accompanying report, the association issued its most comprehensive repudiation of "reparative therapy" — a concept espoused by a small but persistent group of therapists, often allied with religious conservatives, who maintain gays can change.
No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the resolution, adopted by a 125-4 vote. The APA said some research suggests that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.
Instead of seeking such change, the APA urged therapists to consider multiple options — that could range from celibacy to switching churches — for helping clients live spiritually rewarding lives in instances where their sexual orientation and religious faith conflict.
The APA had criticized reparative therapy in the past, but a six-member task force added weight to this position by examining 83 studies on sexual orientation change conducted since 1960. Its report was endorsed by the APA's governing council in Toronto, where the 150,000-member association's annual meeting is being held this weekend.
"Practitioners can assist clients through therapies that do not attempt to change sexual orientation, but rather involve acceptance, support and identity exploration and development without imposing a specific identity outcome," the report says.
The APA task force took as a starting point the belief that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality, not a disorder, and that it nonetheless remains stigmatized in ways that can have negative consequences.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
The below is from: ORLANDO, Fla., Aug 05, 2009 PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX
Exodus International, the largest worldwide ministry to those in conflict with their sexuality and faith, says this report acknowledges religious diversity and hopes to see more efforts to ensure this in the future.
While Exodus does not fully agree with the APA's criticisms of clinical techniques such as reparative therapy and its view of sexual orientation change, the report does recognize that some choose to live their lives in congruence with religious values. The report also encourages therapists to avoid imposing a specific outcome on clients.
Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International, says that not only is faith is an essential part of life for many gay men and women, it is almost always the motivating factor behind their decision to leave it behind and that many in Exodus have experienced a shift in attractions along the way. Chambers just released his second book, Leaving Homosexuality, which clarifies realistic expectations involved in this process.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Analysts Agree: ObamaCare Funds Abortion
Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.
-- From "Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion" by Ricardo Alonsozaldivar, Associated Press Writer 8/6/09
Federal funds for abortions are now [prior to ObamaCare] restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.
Abortion rights supporters say that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange.
Advocates on both sides are preparing for a renewed battle over abortion, which could jeopardize political support for President Barack Obama's health care initiative aimed at covering nearly 50 million uninsured and restraining medical costs. The dispute could come to a head with House and Senate floor votes on abortion this fall, a prospect that many lawmakers would like to avoid.
For years, abortion rights supporters and abortion opponents have waged the equivalent of trench warfare over restrictions on federal funding. Abortion opponents have largely prevailed, instituting restrictions that bar federal funding for abortion, except in cases of rape and incest or if the mother's life would be endangered.
A law called the Hyde amendment applies the restrictions to Medicaid, forcing states that cover abortion for low-income women to do so with their own money. Separate laws apply the restrictions to the federal employee health plan and military and other programs.
The health overhaul would create a stream of federal funding not covered by the restrictions.
The new federal funds would take the form of subsidies for low- and middle-income people buying coverage through the health insurance exchange. Subsidies would be available for people to buy the public plan or private coverage. Making things more complicated, the federal subsidies would be mixed in with contributions from individuals and employers. Eventually, most Americans could end up getting their coverage through the exchange.
The Democratic health care legislation as originally introduced in the House and Senate did not mention abortion. That rang alarm bells for abortion opponents.
Since abortion is a legal medical procedure, experts on both sides say not mentioning it would allow health care plans in the new insurance exchange to provide unrestricted coverage.
As the House and Senate bills stand now, the decision to offer abortion coverage in the public plan would be made by the health and human services secretary.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also, read this related article.
-- From "Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion" by Ricardo Alonsozaldivar, Associated Press Writer 8/6/09
Federal funds for abortions are now [prior to ObamaCare] restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.
Abortion rights supporters say that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange.
Advocates on both sides are preparing for a renewed battle over abortion, which could jeopardize political support for President Barack Obama's health care initiative aimed at covering nearly 50 million uninsured and restraining medical costs. The dispute could come to a head with House and Senate floor votes on abortion this fall, a prospect that many lawmakers would like to avoid.
For years, abortion rights supporters and abortion opponents have waged the equivalent of trench warfare over restrictions on federal funding. Abortion opponents have largely prevailed, instituting restrictions that bar federal funding for abortion, except in cases of rape and incest or if the mother's life would be endangered.
A law called the Hyde amendment applies the restrictions to Medicaid, forcing states that cover abortion for low-income women to do so with their own money. Separate laws apply the restrictions to the federal employee health plan and military and other programs.
The health overhaul would create a stream of federal funding not covered by the restrictions.
The new federal funds would take the form of subsidies for low- and middle-income people buying coverage through the health insurance exchange. Subsidies would be available for people to buy the public plan or private coverage. Making things more complicated, the federal subsidies would be mixed in with contributions from individuals and employers. Eventually, most Americans could end up getting their coverage through the exchange.
The Democratic health care legislation as originally introduced in the House and Senate did not mention abortion. That rang alarm bells for abortion opponents.
Since abortion is a legal medical procedure, experts on both sides say not mentioning it would allow health care plans in the new insurance exchange to provide unrestricted coverage.
As the House and Senate bills stand now, the decision to offer abortion coverage in the public plan would be made by the health and human services secretary.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also, read this related article.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Boston Fights STD Epidemic by Encouraging Sex Among Youth
With infection rates of sexually transmitted diseases in Boston as much as double the national average, city agencies use new Internet social networking tools to teach sex to younger children.
-- From "Cautions for and from teens" by Stephen Smith, Boston Globe Staff 8/4/09
Alarmed by the rampant spread of sexually transmitted germs among Boston teenagers, city disease trackers will unveil a safer-sex campaign today that aims to talk to adolescents via their preferred modes of communication: Facebook, YouTube, and cable channels.
Rising rates of chlamydia, an often silent disease that can cause infertility in women, illustrate the scope of the challenge. In 2007, 1,383 Boston youths between 15 and 19 years old were diagnosed with chlamydia, a 70 percent increase since 1999. The overall rate of the infection in Boston is more than double the national average.
It is evidence, specialists speculated, of teenagers’ casual attitudes about sex, parents’ shifting attention to other children’s health concerns, and improved screening by physicians. Doctors said they regularly encounter patients who are barely old enough to drive and yet suffer the consequences of unprotected sexual activity.
. . . Chlamydia and gonorrhea, another disease transmitted through sexual activity, are more common among Boston adolescents than any other age group.
While those diseases can be treated effectively, swiftly, and cheaply with standard antibiotics, physicians fear that their spread could be a harbinger of another sexually spread disease that is vastly more expensive to treat and has the potential to kill.
"These chlamydia cases and gonorrhea cases, they’re our future HIV cases unless we intervene," said Dr. Anita Barry, top disease specialist at the Boston Public Health Commission.
In the new campaign, teenagers will do much of the talking. They are the stars, and the inspiration, for a video that provides the ABCs of what teens and doctors call STIs, sexually transmitted infections. . . . The video does not discuss abstaining from sex.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Cautions for and from teens" by Stephen Smith, Boston Globe Staff 8/4/09
Alarmed by the rampant spread of sexually transmitted germs among Boston teenagers, city disease trackers will unveil a safer-sex campaign today that aims to talk to adolescents via their preferred modes of communication: Facebook, YouTube, and cable channels.
Rising rates of chlamydia, an often silent disease that can cause infertility in women, illustrate the scope of the challenge. In 2007, 1,383 Boston youths between 15 and 19 years old were diagnosed with chlamydia, a 70 percent increase since 1999. The overall rate of the infection in Boston is more than double the national average.
It is evidence, specialists speculated, of teenagers’ casual attitudes about sex, parents’ shifting attention to other children’s health concerns, and improved screening by physicians. Doctors said they regularly encounter patients who are barely old enough to drive and yet suffer the consequences of unprotected sexual activity.
. . . Chlamydia and gonorrhea, another disease transmitted through sexual activity, are more common among Boston adolescents than any other age group.
While those diseases can be treated effectively, swiftly, and cheaply with standard antibiotics, physicians fear that their spread could be a harbinger of another sexually spread disease that is vastly more expensive to treat and has the potential to kill.
"These chlamydia cases and gonorrhea cases, they’re our future HIV cases unless we intervene," said Dr. Anita Barry, top disease specialist at the Boston Public Health Commission.
In the new campaign, teenagers will do much of the talking. They are the stars, and the inspiration, for a video that provides the ABCs of what teens and doctors call STIs, sexually transmitted infections. . . . The video does not discuss abstaining from sex.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
White House Backs Off Gay Agenda in Health Care
Language in Senate version of health care reform bill provides opportunity for Obama administration to redefine "gender" beyond simply male and female, but HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' spokesman dismisses opportunity
We'll see if this sets off another storm front against Obama from the homosexualists . . .
-- From "Sebelius’ Spokesman Says HHS Will Limit ‘Measurements of Gender’ in Federal Health Care Database to ‘Male’ and ‘Female’—LGBT Categories Will Not Be Included" by Penny Starr, CNSNews Senior Staff Writer 8/4/09
A spokesman for Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told CNSNews.com yesterday that a new federal database that will collect information on all beneficiaries of government-run or government-supported health-care programs will only use the categories “male” and “female”—not lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender--when making entries for a person’s gender.
The language in the Senate health care bill that directs the HHS secretary to create this database makes no mention of “male” or “female” but specifically mandates that she “develop standards for the measurement of gender.”
CNSNews.com asked HHS Spokesman Nicholas Papas: “What standards for measuring gender will Sec. Sebelius develop? And will those measurements be limited to male and female or will they include others, such as members of the LGBT community?”
“The purpose of this section is to determine the best way to collect data on health outcomes, broken down amongst women and men, not to define gender,” Pappas responded. “Collecting this type of information helps us to more fully and accurately measure the health status of different populations and identify any disparities.”
CNSNews.com followed up, asking Pappas: “Just to be clear: You are saying that male and female are the only genders that will be distinguished?”
“Yes,” said Pappas.
The press office for the Senate Health committee did not respond to requests for an explanation of the meaning of the phrase “develop standards for the measurement of gender” or whether or not the committee intended to limit gender to male and female.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
We'll see if this sets off another storm front against Obama from the homosexualists . . .
-- From "Sebelius’ Spokesman Says HHS Will Limit ‘Measurements of Gender’ in Federal Health Care Database to ‘Male’ and ‘Female’—LGBT Categories Will Not Be Included" by Penny Starr, CNSNews Senior Staff Writer 8/4/09
A spokesman for Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told CNSNews.com yesterday that a new federal database that will collect information on all beneficiaries of government-run or government-supported health-care programs will only use the categories “male” and “female”—not lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender--when making entries for a person’s gender.
The language in the Senate health care bill that directs the HHS secretary to create this database makes no mention of “male” or “female” but specifically mandates that she “develop standards for the measurement of gender.”
CNSNews.com asked HHS Spokesman Nicholas Papas: “What standards for measuring gender will Sec. Sebelius develop? And will those measurements be limited to male and female or will they include others, such as members of the LGBT community?”
“The purpose of this section is to determine the best way to collect data on health outcomes, broken down amongst women and men, not to define gender,” Pappas responded. “Collecting this type of information helps us to more fully and accurately measure the health status of different populations and identify any disparities.”
CNSNews.com followed up, asking Pappas: “Just to be clear: You are saying that male and female are the only genders that will be distinguished?”
“Yes,” said Pappas.
The press office for the Senate Health committee did not respond to requests for an explanation of the meaning of the phrase “develop standards for the measurement of gender” or whether or not the committee intended to limit gender to male and female.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Monday, August 03, 2009
L.A. Episcopal Church Nominates Homosexuals to be Bishops
Just weeks after the ECUSA denomination voted to promote homosexuality in its clergy ranks, church leaders in Los Angeles have moved to bless an openly homosexual man and an open lesbian to be elevated to bishop. In contrast, Christians choose to exit the denomination.
-- From "L.A. Episcopal leaders nominate 2 openly gay, lesbian priests as bishops" by Duke Helfand, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer 8/2/09
The nominations of the Rev. John L. Kirkley of San Francisco and the Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool of a Baltimore-based diocese are likely to further inflame theological conservatives in the U.S. church and their global partners in the Anglican Communion, who have repeatedly warned about the repercussions of such action.
The Diocese of Los Angeles, which represents 70,000 Episcopalians in six counties, is widely regarded as one of the most liberal in the U.S. church of 2.1 million members. Its bishop, the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, is an outspoken advocate of gays rights in the church.
U.S. church leaders had promised to exercise restraint before consecrating additional gay bishops in the aftermath of that contentious move. But they reversed course at their convention in Anaheim last month, voting overwhelmingly to open "any ordained ministry" to gays and lesbians. They also agreed to consider rites of blessing for same-sex couples.
The action in Los Angeles followed a similar decision Saturday by leaders in the Diocese of Minnesota, who nominated a partnered lesbian as bishop. The Rev. Bonnie Perry is rector of All Saints Episcopal Church in Chicago and an adjunct professor at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in Evanston, Ill. Her longtime partner is a priest in the church.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "L.A. Episcopal leaders nominate 2 openly gay, lesbian priests as bishops" by Duke Helfand, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer 8/2/09
The nominations of the Rev. John L. Kirkley of San Francisco and the Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool of a Baltimore-based diocese are likely to further inflame theological conservatives in the U.S. church and their global partners in the Anglican Communion, who have repeatedly warned about the repercussions of such action.
The Diocese of Los Angeles, which represents 70,000 Episcopalians in six counties, is widely regarded as one of the most liberal in the U.S. church of 2.1 million members. Its bishop, the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, is an outspoken advocate of gays rights in the church.
U.S. church leaders had promised to exercise restraint before consecrating additional gay bishops in the aftermath of that contentious move. But they reversed course at their convention in Anaheim last month, voting overwhelmingly to open "any ordained ministry" to gays and lesbians. They also agreed to consider rites of blessing for same-sex couples.
The action in Los Angeles followed a similar decision Saturday by leaders in the Diocese of Minnesota, who nominated a partnered lesbian as bishop. The Rev. Bonnie Perry is rector of All Saints Episcopal Church in Chicago and an adjunct professor at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in Evanston, Ill. Her longtime partner is a priest in the church.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Planned Parenthood Defies Law - Fetus IS 'Human Life'
As of Thursday, Planned Parenthood abortionists in South Dakota have been accused of "defying" a ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found constitutional a state requirement for informed consent. . . . which requires doctors to tell women that abortion ends a human life.
UPDATE 8/12/09: State threatens to suspend Planned Parenthood license
-- From "Judge vows to rule soon in abortion warning case" by Josh Verges, Sioux Falls Argus Leader 7/18/09
U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier . . . could decide to send the case to a trial.
Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic, asked a judge to rule that provisions of the law aimed at providing women with factual information before an abortion are too vague or simply inaccurate.
Lawyers for the state and the Alpha Center, a Sioux Falls crisis pregnancy center that intervened in the case, accused Planned Parenthood of relying on bad research.
Planned Parenthood challenged the law soon after it went into effect in 2005, but its doctors began complying in July 2008 only when the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a preliminary injunction.
Even then, the Department of Health warned that the information being provided to patients does not match the language of the law.
Planned Parenthood objects to several statements doctors are required to tell patients: that abortion ends the life of a "whole, separate, unique, living human being"; that pregnant women's relationships with their unborn children are protected by the U.S. constitution and state laws; and that suicide and suicidal ideation is a "known medical risk."
The courts have ruled the clinic need not use the exact form created by the Department of Health, but the state says the form [that Planned Parenthood] abortion doctors are [currently] using does not comply with the law.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Planned Parenthood accused of 'defying' court decision" by Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/31/09
In a letter to the state, a copy of which was obtained by WND, a number of interveners in a lawsuit by Planned Parenthood against South Dakota over the law express alarm that even a full year after the appellate court issued its ruling, the organization apparently remains in deliberate violation.
Doneen Hollingsworth, the secretary of health for the state, told WND in a statement the agency "is required to inspect abortion facilities and enforce applicable laws and regulations. In order to ensure compliance with the law, the department met with Planned Parenthood representatives July 30 regarding findings from its most recent inspection.
The letter, dated just days ago, said, "The statute expressly states that the physician's disclosure statement must include the disclosure 'that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.' The term 'human being' is defined by S.D.C.L. 34-23A-1(4) in the biological sense."
Also, the letter said, "The Disclosure Form created by the South Dakota Department of Health, as it relates to the Human Being Disclosure, accurately reflects the command of the Statute, and is the only wording of the disclosure which would properly comply. Your language is correct as written: '1-b) The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being; the term 'Human Being' means, for the purpose of this and following disclosures, 'an individual living member of the species Homo sapiens during its embryonic and fetal ages.'"
It continued, "The en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals held that this disclosure as written was constitutional. Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, 530 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2008) (en banc). If Planned Parenthood does not use the language drafted by the Department of Health, it is not in compliance with the statute," the letter said.
"The language used by Planned Parenthood does not comply: 'South Dakota requires that you be informed that, as a matter of biology, the abortion will terminate a developing, living organism (an 'embryo' or 'fetus') of the human species ('Homo sapiens') that, in the absence of abnormality, has a complete, separate genetic makeup that is unique to that embryo or fetus,'" the letter said.
"The statute requires a straight forward statement that is easily understood by a lay person, that the abortion terminates the life of a human being. The precise language was carefully selected by the legislature. The language used by Planned Parenthood not only fails to use the clear and proper language, but Planned Parenthood’s language is inaccurate, incomplete, misleading and very confusing," the letter said.
The South Dakota law . . . requires abortionists to explain to women that:
UPDATE 8/12/09: State threatens to suspend Planned Parenthood license
-- From "Judge vows to rule soon in abortion warning case" by Josh Verges, Sioux Falls Argus Leader 7/18/09
U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier . . . could decide to send the case to a trial.
Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic, asked a judge to rule that provisions of the law aimed at providing women with factual information before an abortion are too vague or simply inaccurate.
Lawyers for the state and the Alpha Center, a Sioux Falls crisis pregnancy center that intervened in the case, accused Planned Parenthood of relying on bad research.
Planned Parenthood challenged the law soon after it went into effect in 2005, but its doctors began complying in July 2008 only when the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a preliminary injunction.
Even then, the Department of Health warned that the information being provided to patients does not match the language of the law.
Planned Parenthood objects to several statements doctors are required to tell patients: that abortion ends the life of a "whole, separate, unique, living human being"; that pregnant women's relationships with their unborn children are protected by the U.S. constitution and state laws; and that suicide and suicidal ideation is a "known medical risk."
The courts have ruled the clinic need not use the exact form created by the Department of Health, but the state says the form [that Planned Parenthood] abortion doctors are [currently] using does not comply with the law.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Planned Parenthood accused of 'defying' court decision" by Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/31/09
In a letter to the state, a copy of which was obtained by WND, a number of interveners in a lawsuit by Planned Parenthood against South Dakota over the law express alarm that even a full year after the appellate court issued its ruling, the organization apparently remains in deliberate violation.
Doneen Hollingsworth, the secretary of health for the state, told WND in a statement the agency "is required to inspect abortion facilities and enforce applicable laws and regulations. In order to ensure compliance with the law, the department met with Planned Parenthood representatives July 30 regarding findings from its most recent inspection.
The letter, dated just days ago, said, "The statute expressly states that the physician's disclosure statement must include the disclosure 'that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.' The term 'human being' is defined by S.D.C.L. 34-23A-1(4) in the biological sense."
Also, the letter said, "The Disclosure Form created by the South Dakota Department of Health, as it relates to the Human Being Disclosure, accurately reflects the command of the Statute, and is the only wording of the disclosure which would properly comply. Your language is correct as written: '1-b) The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being; the term 'Human Being' means, for the purpose of this and following disclosures, 'an individual living member of the species Homo sapiens during its embryonic and fetal ages.'"
It continued, "The en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals held that this disclosure as written was constitutional. Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, 530 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2008) (en banc). If Planned Parenthood does not use the language drafted by the Department of Health, it is not in compliance with the statute," the letter said.
"The language used by Planned Parenthood does not comply: 'South Dakota requires that you be informed that, as a matter of biology, the abortion will terminate a developing, living organism (an 'embryo' or 'fetus') of the human species ('Homo sapiens') that, in the absence of abnormality, has a complete, separate genetic makeup that is unique to that embryo or fetus,'" the letter said.
"The statute requires a straight forward statement that is easily understood by a lay person, that the abortion terminates the life of a human being. The precise language was carefully selected by the legislature. The language used by Planned Parenthood not only fails to use the clear and proper language, but Planned Parenthood’s language is inaccurate, incomplete, misleading and very confusing," the letter said.
The South Dakota law . . . requires abortionists to explain to women that:
- The abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;
- The pregnant woman has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota;
- That by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated;
- A description of all known medical risks of the procedure, including depression and related psychological stress and increased risk of suicide
Saturday, August 01, 2009
Killer Abortion Drug RU 486 Approved in Italy
Over protests by physicians and the Vatican, the Italian government has approved the dangerous RU 486 mifepristone abortion drug, which the maker of the drug in Europe says has killed 29 mothers.
-- From "Abortion pill approved in Italy" posted at BBC World News 7/31/09
The Italian Pharmaceuticals Agency (AIFA) ruled late on Thursday that the drug would not be sold in pharmacies and only be administered by doctors.
The pill could only be taken up to the seventh week of pregnancy, it said.
On Thursday, the Vatican said it would excommunicate doctors who prescribed the drug and patients who used it.
RU486 was first introduced in France two decades ago and is available in the United States and several other European countries.
Correspondents say it is not clear how many doctors will prescribe RU486 since, according to the health ministry, 70% of Italian doctors are "conscientious objectors" who refuse to carry out abortions.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Abortion Drug Has Killed 29 Women, European Maker Tells Italy's Government" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor 7/31/09
Currently, eight women have died from using the RU 486 abortion drug in the United States, two in England, and one each in Canada, Sweden and France.
But, according to a report by the Italian news agency ASCA, Exelgyn [the European abortion drug maker] provided the figure of 29 women dying from the abortion pill to the Italy Ministry of Health, which, in turn, gave the information to the AIFA drug regulatory agency.
Meanwhile, Eugenia Roccella, the subsecretary of the Italian health office, also reportedly confirmed the figure she received from Exelgyn to L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Abortion pill approved in Italy" posted at BBC World News 7/31/09
The Italian Pharmaceuticals Agency (AIFA) ruled late on Thursday that the drug would not be sold in pharmacies and only be administered by doctors.
The pill could only be taken up to the seventh week of pregnancy, it said.
On Thursday, the Vatican said it would excommunicate doctors who prescribed the drug and patients who used it.
RU486 was first introduced in France two decades ago and is available in the United States and several other European countries.
Correspondents say it is not clear how many doctors will prescribe RU486 since, according to the health ministry, 70% of Italian doctors are "conscientious objectors" who refuse to carry out abortions.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Abortion Drug Has Killed 29 Women, European Maker Tells Italy's Government" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor 7/31/09
Currently, eight women have died from using the RU 486 abortion drug in the United States, two in England, and one each in Canada, Sweden and France.
But, according to a report by the Italian news agency ASCA, Exelgyn [the European abortion drug maker] provided the figure of 29 women dying from the abortion pill to the Italy Ministry of Health, which, in turn, gave the information to the AIFA drug regulatory agency.
Meanwhile, Eugenia Roccella, the subsecretary of the Italian health office, also reportedly confirmed the figure she received from Exelgyn to L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Obama Stimulates 'Pervert' Revues & Underground Pornography
The National Endowment for the Arts may be spending some of the money it received from the Recovery and Reinvestment Act to fund nude simulated-sex dances, Saturday night "pervert" revues and the airing of pornographic horror films at art houses in San Francisco.
-- From "Stimulus Bill Funds Go to Art Houses Showing 'Pervert' Revues, Underground Pornography" by Joseph Abrams, FOXNews.com 7/30/09
The NEA was given $80 million of the government's $787 billion economic stimulus bill to spread around to needy artists nationwide, and most of the money is being spent to help preserve jobs in museums, orchestras, theaters and dance troupes that have been hit hard by the recession.
But some of the NEA's grants are spicing up more than the economy. A few of their more risque choices have some taxpayer advocates hot under the collar, including a $50,000 infusion for the Frameline film house, which recently screened Thundercrack, "the world's only underground kinky art porno horror film, complete with four men, three women and a gorilla."
Some members of Congress raised alarms as the stimulus bill was being drafted and approved, but President Obama, while admitting there were problems with the $787 billion legislation, stressed the need for immediate action to resuscitate the economy.
Similarly, the director of Frameline, the gay and lesbian film house, told FOXNews.com in an e-mail that their $50,000 grant was not to support any program in particular.
"The grant is not intended for a specific program; it's to be used for the preservation of jobs at our media arts nonprofit organization over the next year during the economic downturn," wrote K.C. Price, who listed four other NEA grants his organization has received.
One project that has received past NEA funding and stands to get an additional boost from a $25,000 stimulus grant is "The Symmetry Project," a dance piece by choreographer Jess Curtis.
The show depicts "the sharing of a central axis, [as] spine, mouth, genitals, face, and anus reveal their interconnectedness and centrality in embodied experience," according to a description offered on Curtis' Web site.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Stimulus Bill Funds Go to Art Houses Showing 'Pervert' Revues, Underground Pornography" by Joseph Abrams, FOXNews.com 7/30/09
The NEA was given $80 million of the government's $787 billion economic stimulus bill to spread around to needy artists nationwide, and most of the money is being spent to help preserve jobs in museums, orchestras, theaters and dance troupes that have been hit hard by the recession.
But some of the NEA's grants are spicing up more than the economy. A few of their more risque choices have some taxpayer advocates hot under the collar, including a $50,000 infusion for the Frameline film house, which recently screened Thundercrack, "the world's only underground kinky art porno horror film, complete with four men, three women and a gorilla."
Some members of Congress raised alarms as the stimulus bill was being drafted and approved, but President Obama, while admitting there were problems with the $787 billion legislation, stressed the need for immediate action to resuscitate the economy.
Similarly, the director of Frameline, the gay and lesbian film house, told FOXNews.com in an e-mail that their $50,000 grant was not to support any program in particular.
"The grant is not intended for a specific program; it's to be used for the preservation of jobs at our media arts nonprofit organization over the next year during the economic downturn," wrote K.C. Price, who listed four other NEA grants his organization has received.
One project that has received past NEA funding and stands to get an additional boost from a $25,000 stimulus grant is "The Symmetry Project," a dance piece by choreographer Jess Curtis.
The show depicts "the sharing of a central axis, [as] spine, mouth, genitals, face, and anus reveal their interconnectedness and centrality in embodied experience," according to a description offered on Curtis' Web site.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
13 Million Unborn Murdered Annually in China
American liberal media focus on Chinese government explanation for the high, and rising, abortion rate: Children are uninformed about sex.
-- From "Abortions Surge in China; Officials Cite Poor Sex Education" by Mark McDonald, New York Times 7/30/09
More than 13 million abortions are performed each year in China, according to statistics disclosed by Chinese health officials on Thursday, a marked increase from 2003, the most recent statistics available.
When unreported and medication-induced abortions are counted, the actual number is substantially higher, according to physicians and medical researchers quoted by the state-run newspaper China Daily on Thursday.
The rate of abortion in China — about 24 abortions for every 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44 — is less than half that of the world’s highest rate. That is Russia’s, at 53.7 per 1,000, according to the United Nations Population Division. Some two million abortions are performed each year in Russia, which has a population of 142 million. China’s population is 1.3 billion.
But the rise in the numbers is significant. In a joint report, the World Health Organization and the Guttmacher Institute put the number of abortions in China in 2003 at 9 million, out of a total of 42 million worldwide that year.
Chinese officials said a low level of sex education among young people was the reason for the widespread use of abortion.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Notice all of the inconsistencies, used to explain the problem, and compare to various other explanations.
-- From "Abortions Surge in China; Officials Cite Poor Sex Education" by Mark McDonald, New York Times 7/30/09
More than 13 million abortions are performed each year in China, according to statistics disclosed by Chinese health officials on Thursday, a marked increase from 2003, the most recent statistics available.
When unreported and medication-induced abortions are counted, the actual number is substantially higher, according to physicians and medical researchers quoted by the state-run newspaper China Daily on Thursday.
The rate of abortion in China — about 24 abortions for every 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44 — is less than half that of the world’s highest rate. That is Russia’s, at 53.7 per 1,000, according to the United Nations Population Division. Some two million abortions are performed each year in Russia, which has a population of 142 million. China’s population is 1.3 billion.
But the rise in the numbers is significant. In a joint report, the World Health Organization and the Guttmacher Institute put the number of abortions in China in 2003 at 9 million, out of a total of 42 million worldwide that year.
Chinese officials said a low level of sex education among young people was the reason for the widespread use of abortion.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Notice all of the inconsistencies, used to explain the problem, and compare to various other explanations.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Obama Wins: U.N. Gay Agenda
The United Nations has given official status to the Brazilian Association of Gays, Lesbians and Transgendereds (ABGLT), favored by the Obama administration, which previously faced scrutiny because of allegations that one of the group’s founders was being investigated for posting pro-pedophilia essays on his blog.
-- From "UN allows gay, lesbian group to join debates" by Bradley S. Klapper, Associated Press 7/27/09
[This] marks the third consecutive year the U.N. Economic and Social Council has overturned a decision by a 19-country committee blocking gay groups from participating in the global body's debates.
Swedish and Spanish groups were accredited as recognized non-governmental organizations in 2007 and 2008, breaking years of resistance from some governments. At one U.N. debate in 2003, Pakistan's ambassador even suggested use of the term "sexual disorientation."
One of the U.N. council's main powers is granting consultative status to organizations so that they can participate in formal U.N. meetings. More than 3,000 groups already have such rights.
The U.S. also criticized the U.N. committee mandated with recommending which campaign groups should be given a place. U.S. diplomat John Sammis said that body seems to spend more time coming up with ways to exclude qualified civil society groups rather than on work aimed at including them.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "UN allows gay, lesbian group to join debates" by Bradley S. Klapper, Associated Press 7/27/09
[This] marks the third consecutive year the U.N. Economic and Social Council has overturned a decision by a 19-country committee blocking gay groups from participating in the global body's debates.
Swedish and Spanish groups were accredited as recognized non-governmental organizations in 2007 and 2008, breaking years of resistance from some governments. At one U.N. debate in 2003, Pakistan's ambassador even suggested use of the term "sexual disorientation."
One of the U.N. council's main powers is granting consultative status to organizations so that they can participate in formal U.N. meetings. More than 3,000 groups already have such rights.
The U.S. also criticized the U.N. committee mandated with recommending which campaign groups should be given a place. U.S. diplomat John Sammis said that body seems to spend more time coming up with ways to exclude qualified civil society groups rather than on work aimed at including them.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Study: Divorce is Hazardous to Your Health
People who get married and stay married may enjoy better health than the perpetually single, but losing a spouse could take a significant health toll, a new study suggests.
-- From "Lasting marriage linked to better health" posted at Reuters Health 7/27/09
. . . divorced or widowed adults fared worse than the never married on certain health measures -- including the number of chronic health conditions reported. "Previously married people experience, on average, 20 percent more conditions and 23 percent more limitations," the researchers write in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior.
Remarriage seemed to lessen some of the health effects of divorce or widowhood. However, remarried men and women were still in generally poorer health than those in a lasting marriage.
"We argue that losing a marriage through divorce or widowhood is extremely stressful and that a high-stress period takes a toll on health," researcher Linda J. Waite, a professor of sociology at the University of Chicago, said in a written statement.
"Think of health as money in the bank," she added. "Think of a marriage as a mechanism for 'saving' or adding to health. Think of divorce as a period of very high expenditures."
The findings are based on data from more than 9,100 Americans age 50 and older who took part in a national health survey in 1992.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Divorce 'health scars permanent'" BBC News 7/27/09
Although people who remarry after a divorce or being widowed do tend to be happier as a result - being no more depressed than those continuously married and less depressed than those who never married - they gain little in terms of chronic health conditions.
People who remarried had 12% more chronic health conditions than those continuously married, which was slightly less than the 20% for the divorced or widowed who did not remarry.
Researcher Dr Linda Waite, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, said divorce or widowhood undermines health because incomes drop and stress develops over issues such as shared child care.
Whereas marriage tends to bring an immediate health benefit, in that it improves health behaviours for men and financial well-being for women.
But remarriage does not heal all.
She said: "Some health situations, like depression, seem to respond both quickly and strongly to changes in current conditions.
"In contrast, conditions such as diabetes and heart disease develop slowly over a substantial period and show the impact of past experiences, which is why health is undermined by divorce or widowhood, even when a person remarries."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Lasting marriage linked to better health" posted at Reuters Health 7/27/09
. . . divorced or widowed adults fared worse than the never married on certain health measures -- including the number of chronic health conditions reported. "Previously married people experience, on average, 20 percent more conditions and 23 percent more limitations," the researchers write in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior.
Remarriage seemed to lessen some of the health effects of divorce or widowhood. However, remarried men and women were still in generally poorer health than those in a lasting marriage.
"We argue that losing a marriage through divorce or widowhood is extremely stressful and that a high-stress period takes a toll on health," researcher Linda J. Waite, a professor of sociology at the University of Chicago, said in a written statement.
"Think of health as money in the bank," she added. "Think of a marriage as a mechanism for 'saving' or adding to health. Think of divorce as a period of very high expenditures."
The findings are based on data from more than 9,100 Americans age 50 and older who took part in a national health survey in 1992.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Divorce 'health scars permanent'" BBC News 7/27/09
Although people who remarry after a divorce or being widowed do tend to be happier as a result - being no more depressed than those continuously married and less depressed than those who never married - they gain little in terms of chronic health conditions.
People who remarried had 12% more chronic health conditions than those continuously married, which was slightly less than the 20% for the divorced or widowed who did not remarry.
Researcher Dr Linda Waite, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, said divorce or widowhood undermines health because incomes drop and stress develops over issues such as shared child care.
Whereas marriage tends to bring an immediate health benefit, in that it improves health behaviours for men and financial well-being for women.
But remarriage does not heal all.
She said: "Some health situations, like depression, seem to respond both quickly and strongly to changes in current conditions.
"In contrast, conditions such as diabetes and heart disease develop slowly over a substantial period and show the impact of past experiences, which is why health is undermined by divorce or widowhood, even when a person remarries."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
RI Congressman Sees Abortion as ObamaCare Deal Breaker
Rep. James R. Langevin and other Democratic supporters of the [health-care reform] effort have warned that any change in the status quo on abortion — including a longstanding ban on federal taxpayer subsidies for abortion — could prevent Mr. Obama from attaining his top domestic policy goal.
-- From "Rep. James Langevin worries about abortion, health-care debate" by John E. Mulligan, Providence Journal Washington Bureau 7/28/09
“I’m deeply concerned that the abortion issue will derail health-care reform,” the Rhode Island congressman said in an interview Monday. Since lawmakers are far from completing their blueprints for the medical overhaul, the implications for abortion policy are not yet clear. It is thus too early to tell whether Langevin’s concern is well-based with Democrats holding strong majorities both houses of Congress.
In fact, Langevin, who generally opposes abortion, declined to say whether he would vote against a health-care bill that extended subsidies to abortion. But as a Democrat who views himself as seeking a middle ground on the highly charged issue, Langevin predicted that the measure cannot pass unless it includes language that specifically protects the ban on federal financing of abortion.
Because the issue is so volatile, Langevin last week joined Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio and other Democratic colleagues in writing Pelosi to ask for legislative language that, in their words, “maintains the current status quo in the private market” by letting insurers decide whether to offer abortion coverage “while ensuring that no federal funds are used for abortions.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Rep. James Langevin worries about abortion, health-care debate" by John E. Mulligan, Providence Journal Washington Bureau 7/28/09
“I’m deeply concerned that the abortion issue will derail health-care reform,” the Rhode Island congressman said in an interview Monday. Since lawmakers are far from completing their blueprints for the medical overhaul, the implications for abortion policy are not yet clear. It is thus too early to tell whether Langevin’s concern is well-based with Democrats holding strong majorities both houses of Congress.
In fact, Langevin, who generally opposes abortion, declined to say whether he would vote against a health-care bill that extended subsidies to abortion. But as a Democrat who views himself as seeking a middle ground on the highly charged issue, Langevin predicted that the measure cannot pass unless it includes language that specifically protects the ban on federal financing of abortion.
Because the issue is so volatile, Langevin last week joined Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio and other Democratic colleagues in writing Pelosi to ask for legislative language that, in their words, “maintains the current status quo in the private market” by letting insurers decide whether to offer abortion coverage “while ensuring that no federal funds are used for abortions.”
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Nurse Sues Hospital for Forcing Her into Abortion
A Brooklyn nurse claims she was forced to choose between her religious convictions and her job when Mount Sinai Hospital ordered her to assist in a late-term abortion against her will.
UPDATE January 2010: Court dismisses lawsuit (nurse loses)
UPDATE 8/19/09: Hospital says nurse has no legal rights
-- From "Nurse 'Forced' to Help Abort" by Kathianne Boniello, New York Post 7/26/09
The hospital even exaggerated the patient's condition and claimed the woman could die if the nurse, a devout Catholic, did not follow orders, the nurse alleges in a lawsuit.
"It felt like a horror film unfolding," said Catherina Cenzon-DeCarlo, 35, who claims she has had gruesome nightmares and hasn't been able to sleep since the May 24 incident.
The married mother of a year-old baby was 30 minutes into her early-morning shift when she realized she had been assigned to an abortion. She begged her supervisor to find a replacement nurse for the procedure. The hospital had a six-hour window to find a fill-in, the suit says.
Her pleas were rejected, and instead she was threatened with career-ending charges of insubordination and patient abandonment, according to the lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Brooklyn federal court.
The day after the procedure, Cenzon-DeCarlo filed a grievance with her union. Later that week, she was cornered by two supervisors who told her if she wanted any more overtime shifts, she would have to sign a statement agreeing to participate in abortions, the suit says.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE January 2010: Court dismisses lawsuit (nurse loses)
UPDATE 8/19/09: Hospital says nurse has no legal rights
-- From "Nurse 'Forced' to Help Abort" by Kathianne Boniello, New York Post 7/26/09
The hospital even exaggerated the patient's condition and claimed the woman could die if the nurse, a devout Catholic, did not follow orders, the nurse alleges in a lawsuit.
"It felt like a horror film unfolding," said Catherina Cenzon-DeCarlo, 35, who claims she has had gruesome nightmares and hasn't been able to sleep since the May 24 incident.
The married mother of a year-old baby was 30 minutes into her early-morning shift when she realized she had been assigned to an abortion. She begged her supervisor to find a replacement nurse for the procedure. The hospital had a six-hour window to find a fill-in, the suit says.
Her pleas were rejected, and instead she was threatened with career-ending charges of insubordination and patient abandonment, according to the lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Brooklyn federal court.
The day after the procedure, Cenzon-DeCarlo filed a grievance with her union. Later that week, she was cornered by two supervisors who told her if she wanted any more overtime shifts, she would have to sign a statement agreeing to participate in abortions, the suit says.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Christian Doctor Deemed Not Equal for UK Adoption Decisions
Dr. Sheila Matthews, a pediatrician, was removed from Northamptonshire county council's adoption panel for her disagreement over homosexual adoption of children, saying that politically-correct legislation can't change the facts of life.
-- From "Doctor sacked over gay adoptions reinstated" by Patrick Sawer, The London Telegraph 7/25/09
The Sunday Telegraph revealed last week that Dr Sheila Matthews had been removed from Northamptonshire county council's adoption panel because she was not willing to recommend gay couples as suitable candidates to become adoptive parents.
However, following protests, Northamptonshire has now decided that she can continue with the central part of her role – conducting medical examinations of would-be adoptive parents and children waiting to be adopted. She will not be allowed to take part in the adoption panel's votes on whether candidates would make suitable parents.
Dr Matthews said: "I've been overwhelmed by the support I've received from the public. I'm pleased with the council's decision because it allows me to carry on providing a service to children and social services. Unfortunately, while I can now do my work as a community paediatrician, I won't be allowed to vote on recommendations for any of the candidates.
"There is research which supports my position that a same sex partnership is not the best family setting to bring up children. As a Christian and a paediatrician I believe that children do best with a mother and father in a committed, long term relationship. Therefore, I cannot recommend a same-sex household to be in the best interest of a child, despite what politicians may have legislated for."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Doctor sacked over gay adoptions reinstated" by Patrick Sawer, The London Telegraph 7/25/09
The Sunday Telegraph revealed last week that Dr Sheila Matthews had been removed from Northamptonshire county council's adoption panel because she was not willing to recommend gay couples as suitable candidates to become adoptive parents.
However, following protests, Northamptonshire has now decided that she can continue with the central part of her role – conducting medical examinations of would-be adoptive parents and children waiting to be adopted. She will not be allowed to take part in the adoption panel's votes on whether candidates would make suitable parents.
Dr Matthews said: "I've been overwhelmed by the support I've received from the public. I'm pleased with the council's decision because it allows me to carry on providing a service to children and social services. Unfortunately, while I can now do my work as a community paediatrician, I won't be allowed to vote on recommendations for any of the candidates.
"There is research which supports my position that a same sex partnership is not the best family setting to bring up children. As a Christian and a paediatrician I believe that children do best with a mother and father in a committed, long term relationship. Therefore, I cannot recommend a same-sex household to be in the best interest of a child, despite what politicians may have legislated for."
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Homosexualists Enraged by Christians Being Near 'Pride Festival'
Coalition of Conscience holds 'God Has a Better Way' event in Charlotte, N.C. nearby and at the same time as annual homosexual Pride Charlotte festival
-- From "Charlotte gay pride festival goes smoothly" by Kathy Haight, The Charlotte Observer 7/25/09
A crowd of more than 10,000 celebrated Charlotte's gay and lesbian community Saturday at the Pride Charlotte festival at Gateway Village.
More than 500 protesters, a significant increase from recent years, showed up as well. Among them was a nationally known Christian evangelist [Lou Engle] from Missouri. But conduct was orderly, police said, and there were no arrests.
While festival goers listened to music on two stages and browsed among more than 80 vendors, protestors gathered on a church lawn across the street for a prayer service.
People of all ages, including parents and children, moved through Saturday's crowd wearing T-shirts supporting gay pride. Some protestors walked among the festival goers to spread their message.
“We are not here to have a confrontation…,” Michael Brown, director of the Charlotte-based Coalition of Conscience, told protesters who gathered at First Baptist Church before marching to the festival. “We are here to send the message that God has a better way.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Opposing rally has 'pridefest' fans enraged" by Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/24/09
Since the [Christian] strategy was adopted, the homosexual event has been moved out of a public park and onto private property, and the goal now is to say, Brown said, "This [pridefest] is not welcome, but at the same time we care about you as individuals, friends and neighbors."
But homosexual activists apparently aren't listening.
At the pro-homosexual TruthWinsOut.org, a commentary said, "Brown has since launched an online initiative titled 'God Has A Better Way,' in which Brown claims that his agenda is 'Spirit-birthed' – a statement of sheer, unapologetic blasphemy."
The website's attack continued, "Brown refers to his crowd's 'biblical convictions' but his 'convictions' in no way resemble the message of the Gospels or, for that matter, much of Hebrew Scripture. Brown appeals for gay people not to be mean-spirited – but he fully intends to remain as mean-spirited and warlike."
Brown told WND that his event is supported by Lou Engle, the national director of "The Call to Action," seeking to bring cultural change through prayer and fasting.
He also said other national ministries are looking at the model being used in Charlotte.
"We have great love for the gay and lesbian community," Brown said, "and have always treated them with dignity and respect; at the same time, we take strong exception to the gay activist agenda and will be sending a message to the city and the nation that God Has a Better Way."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Charlotte gay pride festival goes smoothly" by Kathy Haight, The Charlotte Observer 7/25/09
A crowd of more than 10,000 celebrated Charlotte's gay and lesbian community Saturday at the Pride Charlotte festival at Gateway Village.
More than 500 protesters, a significant increase from recent years, showed up as well. Among them was a nationally known Christian evangelist [Lou Engle] from Missouri. But conduct was orderly, police said, and there were no arrests.
While festival goers listened to music on two stages and browsed among more than 80 vendors, protestors gathered on a church lawn across the street for a prayer service.
People of all ages, including parents and children, moved through Saturday's crowd wearing T-shirts supporting gay pride. Some protestors walked among the festival goers to spread their message.
“We are not here to have a confrontation…,” Michael Brown, director of the Charlotte-based Coalition of Conscience, told protesters who gathered at First Baptist Church before marching to the festival. “We are here to send the message that God has a better way.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Opposing rally has 'pridefest' fans enraged" by Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/24/09
Since the [Christian] strategy was adopted, the homosexual event has been moved out of a public park and onto private property, and the goal now is to say, Brown said, "This [pridefest] is not welcome, but at the same time we care about you as individuals, friends and neighbors."
But homosexual activists apparently aren't listening.
At the pro-homosexual TruthWinsOut.org, a commentary said, "Brown has since launched an online initiative titled 'God Has A Better Way,' in which Brown claims that his agenda is 'Spirit-birthed' – a statement of sheer, unapologetic blasphemy."
The website's attack continued, "Brown refers to his crowd's 'biblical convictions' but his 'convictions' in no way resemble the message of the Gospels or, for that matter, much of Hebrew Scripture. Brown appeals for gay people not to be mean-spirited – but he fully intends to remain as mean-spirited and warlike."
Brown told WND that his event is supported by Lou Engle, the national director of "The Call to Action," seeking to bring cultural change through prayer and fasting.
He also said other national ministries are looking at the model being used in Charlotte.
"We have great love for the gay and lesbian community," Brown said, "and have always treated them with dignity and respect; at the same time, we take strong exception to the gay activist agenda and will be sending a message to the city and the nation that God Has a Better Way."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Obama Czar Nominee Elevates Animals to Human Stature
“Sen. Cornyn finds numerous aspects of [Obama nominee Cass] Sunstein’s record troubling, specifically the fact that he wants to establish legal ‘rights’ for livestock, wildlife and pets, which would enable animals to file lawsuits in American courts. Sunstein’s musings about instituting a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet are equally as troubling,” said Kevin McLaughlin, a spokesman for Cornyn.
-- From "Wait grows on OMB's regulatory review" by Kevin Bogardus, The Hill 7/23/09
The Obama administration is more than two months late in releasing a review of its regulatory process, leading critics to charge it is failing to meet its promise of transparency.
Many suspect the stalled nomination of Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law School professor and friend of President Obama’s, for administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) may be the reason the report has yet to be released.
Rena Steinzor, president of the Center for Progressive Reform, a think tank for liberal academics and scientists, said she did not know what has happened to the review.
But she suspects that Sunstein’s confirmation is key to the review being released, a point echoed by other observers of OMB. If confirmed, the Harvard professor would head the regulatory affairs office, which reviews every federal regulation issued across the government. For any new executive order dealing with review of regulations, that office would be the primary agency.
“I am not optimistic for it to come out because Cass Sunstein has been very bad on regulatory issues,” Steinzor said. “He is expected to come up with something that is more demanding and harder on the other agencies.”
Steinzor, a University of Maryland law professor, believes the report ordered by Obama will strengthen a 1993 executive order that consolidated reviews of federal regulations. That order, she said, has been used by past administrations to weaken rules that promote safety and health. Sunstein has not been well-received by Steinzor and other liberal supporters of Obama.
“From a conservative perspective, he is about as good as you can hope from this administration,” said David Mason, a visiting senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Mason said Sunstein has earned praised from the right, including an endorsement by The Wall Street Journal editorial board, because the Harvard professor believes in review of regulations and a rigorous cost-benefit analysis during the rulemaking process.
For now, Sunstein’s nomination, which was sent to the Senate in late April, is stalled and is unlikely to come up before the August recess. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) has placed a hold on the nominee.
Sunstein co-edited Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, a 2004 collection of essays that discuss whether law should ensure animal welfare. Cornyn will not release his hold on the nomination until he meets with Sunstein to discuss such views, McLaughlin said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Obama Regulatory Czar's Confirmation Held Up by Hunting Rights Proponent" by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, FOXNews.com 7/22/09
One of Sunstein's top jobs would be to review and provide guidance for draft federal regulations at different federal agencies. It is a wide-ranging and largely unrestrained position in the executive branch.
That's a large part of the reason Sunstein's positions on animal rights have become worrisome to his critics. Despite his assurances to the contrary, Sunstein has spoken stridently in favor of allowing people the right to bring suit on behalf of animals in animal cruelty cases and to restrict what he calls the more horrific practices associated with industrial breeding and processing of animals for food.
In a 2007 speech at Harvard, Sunstein also advocated restricting animal testing for cosmetics, banning hunting and encouraging the general public to eat less meat.
The Center for Consumer Freedom's David Martosko, a Sunstein critic, said those positions make the agricultural industry -- major stakeholders in the states represented by both Chambliss and Cornyn -- nervous.
Martosko said there are plenty of ways to pursue a "stealth campaign" on any one of these fronts -- guns or animal rights -- by putting pressure on the regulatory heads of the different agencies.
"He is the gatekeeper between the president and the secretaries," he said, noting that "as a regulatory czar, he won't be a judge or a legislator, so he cannot make laws. ... What he can do is nudge the departments in the direction of his philosophy," which is very much in line with "hard core animal rights zealots."
Environmentalists also say Sunstein's nomination is a potential blow to their efforts to roll back what they call Bush-era deregulation. Frank O'Donnell, director of Clean Water Watch, wrote that "progressives would've screamed" if President Bush had nominated someone with similar views for the OIRA post." In fact, Bush did, O'Donnell noted, much to the chagrin of progressives.
Adding to animal rights and cost-benefit analysis is concern over Sunstein's positions on freedom of speech.
News of Sunstein's latest book, "On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done," lit up the blogosphere last week when The New York Post ran a column by a reviewer who received an advance copy.
Writer Kyle Smith suggested Sunstein threatens to tweak libel laws for the Internet and make online writers, particularly bloggers, legally responsible for falsehoods and rumors that get generated in cyberspace.
Sunstein, a prolific writer who has penned 35 books since 1990, has plowed the issue of rumors and how they are spread, and leaves much of the policy debate in the air.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Wait grows on OMB's regulatory review" by Kevin Bogardus, The Hill 7/23/09
The Obama administration is more than two months late in releasing a review of its regulatory process, leading critics to charge it is failing to meet its promise of transparency.
Many suspect the stalled nomination of Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law School professor and friend of President Obama’s, for administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) may be the reason the report has yet to be released.
Rena Steinzor, president of the Center for Progressive Reform, a think tank for liberal academics and scientists, said she did not know what has happened to the review.
But she suspects that Sunstein’s confirmation is key to the review being released, a point echoed by other observers of OMB. If confirmed, the Harvard professor would head the regulatory affairs office, which reviews every federal regulation issued across the government. For any new executive order dealing with review of regulations, that office would be the primary agency.
“I am not optimistic for it to come out because Cass Sunstein has been very bad on regulatory issues,” Steinzor said. “He is expected to come up with something that is more demanding and harder on the other agencies.”
Steinzor, a University of Maryland law professor, believes the report ordered by Obama will strengthen a 1993 executive order that consolidated reviews of federal regulations. That order, she said, has been used by past administrations to weaken rules that promote safety and health. Sunstein has not been well-received by Steinzor and other liberal supporters of Obama.
“From a conservative perspective, he is about as good as you can hope from this administration,” said David Mason, a visiting senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Mason said Sunstein has earned praised from the right, including an endorsement by The Wall Street Journal editorial board, because the Harvard professor believes in review of regulations and a rigorous cost-benefit analysis during the rulemaking process.
For now, Sunstein’s nomination, which was sent to the Senate in late April, is stalled and is unlikely to come up before the August recess. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) has placed a hold on the nominee.
Sunstein co-edited Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, a 2004 collection of essays that discuss whether law should ensure animal welfare. Cornyn will not release his hold on the nomination until he meets with Sunstein to discuss such views, McLaughlin said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Obama Regulatory Czar's Confirmation Held Up by Hunting Rights Proponent" by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, FOXNews.com 7/22/09
One of Sunstein's top jobs would be to review and provide guidance for draft federal regulations at different federal agencies. It is a wide-ranging and largely unrestrained position in the executive branch.
That's a large part of the reason Sunstein's positions on animal rights have become worrisome to his critics. Despite his assurances to the contrary, Sunstein has spoken stridently in favor of allowing people the right to bring suit on behalf of animals in animal cruelty cases and to restrict what he calls the more horrific practices associated with industrial breeding and processing of animals for food.
In a 2007 speech at Harvard, Sunstein also advocated restricting animal testing for cosmetics, banning hunting and encouraging the general public to eat less meat.
The Center for Consumer Freedom's David Martosko, a Sunstein critic, said those positions make the agricultural industry -- major stakeholders in the states represented by both Chambliss and Cornyn -- nervous.
Martosko said there are plenty of ways to pursue a "stealth campaign" on any one of these fronts -- guns or animal rights -- by putting pressure on the regulatory heads of the different agencies.
"He is the gatekeeper between the president and the secretaries," he said, noting that "as a regulatory czar, he won't be a judge or a legislator, so he cannot make laws. ... What he can do is nudge the departments in the direction of his philosophy," which is very much in line with "hard core animal rights zealots."
Environmentalists also say Sunstein's nomination is a potential blow to their efforts to roll back what they call Bush-era deregulation. Frank O'Donnell, director of Clean Water Watch, wrote that "progressives would've screamed" if President Bush had nominated someone with similar views for the OIRA post." In fact, Bush did, O'Donnell noted, much to the chagrin of progressives.
Adding to animal rights and cost-benefit analysis is concern over Sunstein's positions on freedom of speech.
News of Sunstein's latest book, "On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done," lit up the blogosphere last week when The New York Post ran a column by a reviewer who received an advance copy.
Writer Kyle Smith suggested Sunstein threatens to tweak libel laws for the Internet and make online writers, particularly bloggers, legally responsible for falsehoods and rumors that get generated in cyberspace.
Sunstein, a prolific writer who has penned 35 books since 1990, has plowed the issue of rumors and how they are spread, and leaves much of the policy debate in the air.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Friday, July 24, 2009
California Homosexualists Fight Each Other over Prop 8 Lawsuit
The city of San Francisco wants to intervene in a federal lawsuit attempting to overturn California voters' support for traditional marriage. One "gay-rights" organization is accusing other homosexualists "of trying to sabotage the case."
-- From "San Francisco wants a say in Prop. 8 lawsuit" by Bob Egelko, San Fran. Chronicle Staff Writer 7/24/09
The leader of an organization that filed the suit against Proposition 8 has already accused established gay-rights groups of trying to undermine the case and promised to oppose their attempt to intervene. San Francisco raised the stakes Thursday by filing a similar motion with Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who has scheduled a hearing for Aug. 19.
The city would add "a unique local government perspective" to the case, along with its extensive legal experience in defending gay and lesbian rights, if allowed to intervene, City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office said in court papers.
The city and leading gay-rights groups have been allowed to file written arguments supporting the challenge to Prop. 8. But only the plaintiffs -two couples and an organization represented by attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies, adversaries in the 2000 Bush vs. Gore presidential election case - have the right to direct the case, negotiate with defenders of Prop. 8 and file appeals.
Gay-rights advocates and the city of San Francisco, plaintiffs in the state court case against Prop. 8, had steered clear of federal issues that might have given the U.S. Supreme Court jurisdiction to rule on same-sex marriage. Now that the dispute is in federal court, however, the state plaintiffs want to join the argument but redefine the case.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Also read earlier article: S.F. asks federal judge to toss Prop. 8
-- From "San Francisco wants a say in Prop. 8 lawsuit" by Bob Egelko, San Fran. Chronicle Staff Writer 7/24/09
The leader of an organization that filed the suit against Proposition 8 has already accused established gay-rights groups of trying to undermine the case and promised to oppose their attempt to intervene. San Francisco raised the stakes Thursday by filing a similar motion with Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who has scheduled a hearing for Aug. 19.
The city would add "a unique local government perspective" to the case, along with its extensive legal experience in defending gay and lesbian rights, if allowed to intervene, City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office said in court papers.
The city and leading gay-rights groups have been allowed to file written arguments supporting the challenge to Prop. 8. But only the plaintiffs -two couples and an organization represented by attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies, adversaries in the 2000 Bush vs. Gore presidential election case - have the right to direct the case, negotiate with defenders of Prop. 8 and file appeals.
Gay-rights advocates and the city of San Francisco, plaintiffs in the state court case against Prop. 8, had steered clear of federal issues that might have given the U.S. Supreme Court jurisdiction to rule on same-sex marriage. Now that the dispute is in federal court, however, the state plaintiffs want to join the argument but redefine the case.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Also read earlier article: S.F. asks federal judge to toss Prop. 8
Federal Judge Tosses Lawsuit Against Prop 8
A federal judge has thrown out a homosexual couple's challenge to the California constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
-- From "Federal judge tosses lawsuit against Prop 8" by Chelsea Schilling © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/20/09
In December 2008, two homosexual men filed a lawsuit claiming that the state's marriage amendment, passed decisively by voters in November's election, violates the U.S. Constitution.
The men were able to obtain a California "marriage" license during a short window of time in which licenses for same-sex unions were granted. They wed July 10, 2008 – before California's Proposition 8 was passed.
In the case, Smelt et. al. v. United States of America, Plaintiffs Arthur Bruno Smelt and Christopher David Hammer argued that "'the refusal of all states and jurisdictions' to recognize the validity of their marriage results in the denial to them of numerous rights, benefits and responsibilities bestowed on all other married couples, so long as they are opposite-sex couples."
Smelt and Hammer targeted their action at the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8.
. . . the U.S. government will still be listed as a defendant when the case against the Defense of Marriage Act is heard Aug. 3 by the California Supreme Court.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Federal judge tosses lawsuit against Prop 8" by Chelsea Schilling © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/20/09
In December 2008, two homosexual men filed a lawsuit claiming that the state's marriage amendment, passed decisively by voters in November's election, violates the U.S. Constitution.
The men were able to obtain a California "marriage" license during a short window of time in which licenses for same-sex unions were granted. They wed July 10, 2008 – before California's Proposition 8 was passed.
In the case, Smelt et. al. v. United States of America, Plaintiffs Arthur Bruno Smelt and Christopher David Hammer argued that "'the refusal of all states and jurisdictions' to recognize the validity of their marriage results in the denial to them of numerous rights, benefits and responsibilities bestowed on all other married couples, so long as they are opposite-sex couples."
Smelt and Hammer targeted their action at the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8.
. . . the U.S. government will still be listed as a defendant when the case against the Defense of Marriage Act is heard Aug. 3 by the California Supreme Court.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Can Encouraging Sexual Activity Result in Fewer Deaths of the Unborn?
Congress and the Obama administration will be considering new legislation that includes more money for teaching children how to have sex and use a variety of devices and medications to preclude discernible pregnancies -- all under the banner of reducing abortions.
Obviously, the liberals have recognized that Americans are predominantly pro-life, and so now the game is to fool the public into thinking that no lives are snuffed out by these so-called contraceptives.
-- From "Democratic Bill Could Be a Preview of Obama's Abortion Plan" by Dan Gilgoff, posted at U.S. News & World Report 7/23/09
Democratic Reps. Tim Ryan and Rosa DeLauro reintroduced their bill aimed at preventing unintended pregnancies and "reducing the need for abortion" today. This is big news because moderate to liberal faith-based advocates are urging the White House to adopt the bill—the Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion, and Supporting Parents Act—as the core of its forthcoming "common ground" plan on abortion and reproductive health.
Conservative religious groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention, have warned the White House that the Ryan-DeLauro bill is a deal breaker for them, since the bill funds contraception and comprehensive sex education.
. . . the folks who've recently come out for Ryan-DeLauro include White House buds Rev. Joel Hunter, Rev. Jim Wallis, Faith in Public Life, and Third Way, not to mention abortion rights groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Obviously, the liberals have recognized that Americans are predominantly pro-life, and so now the game is to fool the public into thinking that no lives are snuffed out by these so-called contraceptives.
-- From "Democratic Bill Could Be a Preview of Obama's Abortion Plan" by Dan Gilgoff, posted at U.S. News & World Report 7/23/09
Democratic Reps. Tim Ryan and Rosa DeLauro reintroduced their bill aimed at preventing unintended pregnancies and "reducing the need for abortion" today. This is big news because moderate to liberal faith-based advocates are urging the White House to adopt the bill—the Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion, and Supporting Parents Act—as the core of its forthcoming "common ground" plan on abortion and reproductive health.
Conservative religious groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention, have warned the White House that the Ryan-DeLauro bill is a deal breaker for them, since the bill funds contraception and comprehensive sex education.
. . . the folks who've recently come out for Ryan-DeLauro include White House buds Rev. Joel Hunter, Rev. Jim Wallis, Faith in Public Life, and Third Way, not to mention abortion rights groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)