Thursday, April 30, 2009

April 30, 2009
Texas bill would decriminalize infanticide
taken from Jill Stanek

jessica ferrar pp award.jpgDemocrat pro-abortion Catholic state Rep. Jessica Ferrar has quite a resumé. There she is pictured right holding a Planned Parenthood Public Affairs Award she received last year "for her work on reproductive health issues," according to her website.

Ferrar opposes a bill currently before the legislature that would mandate abortionists offer mothers the option of viewing an ultrasound of their baby. She currently is sponsoring a bill that would force Catholic hospitals to dispense the morning-after pill. And Ferrar maintains a 100% approval rating from NARAL.

But disregard for prenatal life isn't enough for Ferrar, who is also sponsoring the first legislation of its kind in the nation, known as "The Infanticide Bill," HB 3318.

The Infanticide Bill would decriminalize infanticide of babies under 1 year old from being a capital murder offense, punishable by life in prison or the death penalty, to 180 days to 2 years in jail and a fine not to exceed $10k, for mothers found to be suffering, in the court's opinion, severe post-partum depression.

A defendent would be eligible for this sentence if her "judgment was impaired as a result of the effects of giving birth or the effects of lactation following birth," wrote Ferrar in her legislative analysis.

While I empathize for mothers suffering this malady, it does not extend to dehumanizing their babies so killing them is any less heinous in the eyes of the court than killing older children.

After all, depression extends throughout the life spectrum. Why should infanticide be set apart as a more tolerated crime?

Obviously, because of Ferrar's pro-abortion proclivities and the company she keeps, this is a veiled attempt to portray pregnancy as an illness, to provide a loophole for mothers committing 4th trimester abortions (postnatal murder), and to blur the line between abortion and infanticide.

It just keeps getting worse, doesn't it? This means women are given permission to kill their babies. This means women WILL kill their babies. Please pray this doesn't pass. Pam

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

President Obama's First 100 Days: Major Abortion Promotion, Attacking Pro-Lifers
by Steven Ertelt EditorApril 29, 2009

Washington, DC ( -- President Barack Obama marks his first 100 days in the White House today and his record is replete with aggressive promotion of abortion and attacks on pro-life advocates. Obama has used tax dollars to pay for abortion and embryonic stem cell research and stacked his administration with abortion advocates.
The president's litany of anti-life decisions began immediately after his election in November, when he selected a long-time abortion advocate as his White House chief of staff.
Obama began fulfilling his promises to abortion advocates during his first week in office when he overturned the Mexico City Policy that prevented forcing taxpayers to fund groups that promote and perform abortions in other countries.
Instead of urging Americans to honor and respect the dignity and worth of human life as other presidents have done, Obama used the 36th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision to celebrate the 50 million abortions that have been done since then.
Janice Shaw Crouse, of Concerned Women for America, says the media presentation of Obama's first 100 days likely won't feature an overview of his extensive pro-abortion record.
"The media hype about President Obama's first 100 days spares no cliché or hyperbole in trying to convince America that our new president ranks among our nation's greatest," she told
"The political commentators need to take off their rose-colored glasses and stop bending over backwards to describe Obama's policies as moderate and his changes as positive advances for freedom and democracy around the world," says Crouse. "Underneath all the media visuals that make a compelling story, there is the sobering reality that this president is very divisive and extremely partisan."
She condemns Obama for "restructuring the domestic social policies of the United States of America by usurping the basic foundation stones of America's domestic policies and the pro-life ... stances that have made this nation the envy of the rest of the world."
Even those who say they want to work with Obama are concerned about his extensive pro-abortion record.
Frank Page, leader of Taylors Baptist Church and a member of Obama's White House faith committee, told CBN News, "By and large I have not been very encouraged by our president's first 100 days in regards to pro-life issues, in regards to sensitivity to the evangelical community.""I have not been surprised by anything our president has done, but I have been surprised at the rapidity with which he has done what he has done," Page added. "[The] removal of what few protections there are for example regarding innocent unborn babies-- this has happened quickly."
During his first two months, Obama put people in key policy positions in the White House, Justice Department and his Cabinet who are not only abortion advocates but former staff and board members for top pro-abortion organizations like Emily's List and NARAL.
Obama's second major pro-abortion policy decision came in February when he proposed overturning pro-life conscience protections President Bush put in place to make sure medical staff and centers are not forced to do abortions.
One day later, he nominated pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius to become Secretary of Health and Human Services and she is expected to put that decision in place now that she has been confirmed by the Senate.
In his third decision, Obama announced $50 million for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that has been criticized for promoting abortion and working closely with Chinese population control officials who use forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations.
Obama's fourth major policy decision saw him sign an executive order forcing taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research.
The Obama administration has also aggressively attacked pro-life advocates.
In March, Obama's team shut out pro-life groups from attending a White House-sponsored health care summit. Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion business, made the invitation list as did other pro-abortion groups.
Then, earlier this month, the Obama administration released a document that claims pro-life people may engage in violence or extremism.
The future doesn't appear to hold anything different when it comes to Obama promoting abortion.Obama made his first judicial appointment and named pro-abortion federal Judge David Hamilton to serve on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Other judges, including potential Supreme Court nominees, are expected to be pro-abortion as well.

If you read the liberal side of his 100 Days you would think he is sent from God. The one thing bothering me is if they are Pro Choice, why isn't adoption ever mentioned? Why isn't there more funding for adoption? If they are about choice, what are the other alternatives? The only thing I hear is women's rights and abortion. Which means they are Pro Abortion. Which equals Pro-Death. Which means and equals a Pro Death Squad running our country. Can one of them please just whisper the word adoption? Pam

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Deanna and Mother Teresa

"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even his life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love - that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion. " Mother Teresa

Please go to Deanna's Motherhood in Real Time blog to view her video on the difference between Hillary Clinton and Mother Teresa. It is very good, and very informative. Pam

Friday, April 24, 2009

Planned Parenthood busted in Charlotte, N.C.

taken from Jill Stanek

by Kelli

1.pngFrom Students for Life of America:

On Wednesday, the FDA announced it would allow 17 year olds to purchase the "morning-after" birth control pill without a doctor's prescription or parental knowledge. As proved in the SFLA Oct. 2008 undercover video from Charlotte, NC, this announcement will only help Planned Parenthood and their abortion allies to continue to cover up cases of rape...

In June of 2008, a college woman volunteering for SFLA entered a clinic in NC posing as a 15-year-old girl who had unprotected sex with her mother's live-in boyfriend who was in his 30s; the girl told the clinic workers he suggested she come get the morning-after pill.

Not only did PP workers fail to report the statutory rape as required by NC General Statues... they told the girl her rapist could go into any drug store to purchase the morning-after pill... Plan B.

SFLA Executive Director, Kristan Hawkins, said, "The FDA ruling this week which expands access of Plan B to minors is just going to allow rapists to continue to cover up their crimes. Parents won't even know that their daughters are being raped."

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Ephesians 5:11
Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

taken from Jill Stanek

Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) fabulously called out Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing:

First, the stellar Congressman Smith:

In receiving Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger's award in Houston on March 27th, you said that you were in "awe" of Margaret Sanger; you said that Sanger's "life and leadership" was "one of the most transformational in the entire history of the human race" and that Sanger's work both here and abroad was "not done".

With all due respect, Madam Secretary, transformational yes; but not for the better if one happens to be poor, disenfranchised, weak, disabled, a person of color, an unborn child, or among the many so-called undesirables Sanger would exclude and exterminate from the human race. Sanger's prolific writings drip with contempt for those she considers to be unfit to live....

I've actually read many of Sanger's articles and books. Sanger was an unapologetic eugenicist and racist who said "the most merciful thing a family does for one of its infant members is to kill it." And said on another occasion, "eugenics is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems."

In her book, Pivot of Civilization, Sanger devoted an entire chapter, which she entitled the "Cruelty of Charity," to explaining a shockingly inhumane case for systematic denial of prenatal and maternal health care for poor, pregnant women.

"Such benevolence is not merely superficial and near-sighted" Sanger wrote "it conceals a stupid cruelty" and leads to a "deterioration in the human stock" and "the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents."

So it is extraordinarily difficult how anyone especially a Secretary of State could be in "awe" of Margaret Sanger, a person who made no secret whatsoever of views that were antithetical to protecting human rights and that suggest that "her work" remains undone here and around the world.

In 2007 alone PP killed over 305k children by abortion in the United States and millions more worldwide.

As part of "Sanger's work" that remains undone, is the Obama Administration seeking to weaken or overturn pro-life laws and policies in African and Latin America countries either directly or through multilateral organizations including and especially the UN, African Union, or the OAS, or by way of funding NGOs like PP?

And so we have total transparency, does the United States' definition of the term 1) "reproductive health" or 2) "reproductive services" or 3) "reproductive rights" include abortion?

large_Hillary-Clinton-Hands-Jan13-09.jpgSecretary of State Hillary Clinton responded:

Congressman, I deeply respect your passionate concerns and views, which you have championed and advocated for over the course of your public career. We obviously have a profound disagreement.

When I think about the suffering that I have seen of women around the world - I've been in hospitals in Brazil where half the women were enthusiastically and joyfully greeting new babies and the other half were fighting for their lives against botched abortions. I've been in African countries where 12- and 13 year-old-girls are bearing children. I have been in Asian countries where the denial of family planning consigns women to lives of oppression and hardship. So we have a very fundamental disagreement. And it is my strongly held view that you are entitled to advocate and everyone who agrees with you should be free to do so anywhere in the world, and so are we.

We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women's health. And reproductive health includes access to abortion that I believe should be safe, legal, and rare. I spent a lot of my time trying to bring down the rate of abortions and it has been my experience that good family planning and good medical care brings down the rate of abortion. Keeping women and men in ignorance and denied access to services actually increases the rate of abortion.

During my time as First Lady I helped to create the Campaign Against Teenage Pregnancy, and while we were working to provide good information, access to contraception, and decision-making that would enable young women to protect themselves and say no, the rate of teen pregnancy went down. I'm sad to report that after an administration of 8 years that undid so much of the good work, the rate of teenage pregnancy is going up.

So, we disagree. And we are now an Administration that will protect the rights of women, including their rights to reproductive health care.

Jill's follow-up for Mrs. Clinton:

Prove your claim that in Brazilian maternity wards half the women are delivering babies and half being treated for botched abortions.

So your concern is that 12- and 13-year-olds be able to abort when the real problem is they're being RAPED.

And exactly why do you want abortion to be "rare"? Why have you "spent a lot of my time trying to bring down the rate of abortions"?

Doesn't it just amaze you how blinded and irrational the leaders of our country are becoming? It seems common sense is going out the window in every area, along with compassion and charity. Instead of working through issues and helping people, just get rid of the issue and the person. (baby) There also is the problem of sexual promiscuity and sexual disease that everyone seems to be fine with. As long as we have Planned Parenthood all of our problems are solved. They aren't solving the problems, they are only creating more problems for the women using their reproductive health services. Why aren't we addressing the core issue of the main problem here in the U.S.? And that would be the promoting of sexual promiscuity in every media and entertainment outlet there is. People are told constantly to have sex. That is what drives our country. Then we kill what comes out of this terrible sin, the innocent babies. What is going to happen to our country? Where are we headed?


Friday, April 17, 2009

1 Corinthians 10:31 (NIV)

31So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

I had an exciting afternoon. After work I came home, crawled in bed, pulled the covers over my head and proceeded to tell the Lord why this life was not for me anymore. The list went something like this: Lord, I am tired and overwhelmed, and it is just too much for me...there is so much to do and is it even making a difference? Lord, we are not winning, everything is stacked against us....Lord, I am really tired and lonely and broke. It would be nice to just run away and start over somewhere fresh, but I can't afford it and my car won't make it anyway....Lord, I really have no more energy to go on, it just doesn't seem like anything is working out...and so went my list of crying to the Lord. Have you ever done that? Please someone, tell me you have!! It is a desperate feeling, and the entire time I was also asking the Lord to help me. It is one of those places we get to where we truly need His refreshment. We are nothing but bone dry, and need a Word from Him. So I continued to lay there, whining and begging with my cats looking at me in a strange way. By this time the covers had come down from over my head. All of a sudden, a very still quiet voice spoke to my heart. Get up and do everything for Me. Live for Me. You know what? I could feel life flowing back through my veins, and I had a reason to get up. It wasn't because of the Pro Life movement. It wasn't because of the list of things I needed to accomplish. It wasn't because of work. It wasn't because of my children. It wasn't even because of me. It was because of Him. Jesus. I understood more clear than I ever have. I am doing EVERYTHING I am doing because of Him. Every breath I breathe, every meal I eat, every moment I live is for Him. It is all for Him. So, today I got out of bed and started back in life refreshed, all for Him. He is so good, and I love Him so much. So....will one of you please remind me of this next month when once again the covers are pulled over my head??


Pro Lifers Classified as Terrorist

taken from Jill Staneks' blog
April 16, 2009

Go ahead, put me on your terrorist watch list


Hey, Department of Homeland Security, I was on a rightwing conference call today to discuss your April 7 report slandering us as potential domestic terror threats. Were you listening in?

Recall this is the same DHS that issued guidelines for the entire government to purge itself of language such as "jihad" and "islamofascism" so as not to offend Muslims.

Yet its report is replete with the word "rightwing," because offending us isn't a problem.

Knowing that for me as a pro-lifer to write my blood is boiling may land me on a violent threat watch list makes my blood boil more. Here's what the report says about us:

Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement's opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists' longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage.

This is 1984. The U.S. government has gone stark raving mad. The people who merely want to save preborn lives are considered white supremacist terrorist threats by those authorizing the killing of preborn lives, most of whom, proportionally speaking, are black.

Barack Obama has surrounded himself with radical liberals like himself who are now overtly attempting to intimidate pro-lifers as well as finfluence public opinion against conservative values. The document says so in its opening paragraph:

Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States Government sponsorship.

Well I'm not going to take it. Give me liberty or give me death.

If Patrick Henry were alive today, Janet Napolitano would have him on a watch list.

It appears the Obama Administration is trying to influence America as to who their enemy is when it comes to the pursuit of happiness and peace. If enough negative information can be said against us, we can become the enemy, and the cause of many problems in America. Evil is truly being called good, and good evil. Pam

Monday, April 13, 2009

What the Media Messed Up About the
Obama Stem Cell Story

This is taken from a website on Stem Cell Research
This article is a little long, but is worth reading to
have accurate information. I will leave it posted for
a few days. It is obvious President Obama is on an
aggressive agenda to expand abortion in all areas.
It would be good for all of us to know the truth.

9 Things the Media Messed Up About the Obama Stem Cell Story
By Josh Brahm (bio)

The longer I live the less I’m surprised by poor journalism in major media outlets. However, I think the reports about President Obama's recent decision (3/9/09) to force taxpayers to pay for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research (HESCR) takes the cake. After reviewing the articles and videos by major media sources, as well as the local media here in Fresno, I offer this analysis of what you likely either missed or were misinformed about if those were your only sources for information.

#1. Omitting the importance of iPS cells

Who did this?
BBC; NPR; The Guardian; Fresno KMPH (FOX 26); Fresno ABC (Channel 30)

Why is it significant?

One of the major areas of the stem cell research debate over the last decade concerns embryonic stem cells that are pluripotent, or pliable, as opposed to adult stem cells that are only multipotent, and supposedly less pliable and useful.

However, It’s worth noting that several studies have indicated that this can be worked around. One study was conducted when a researcher took stem cells from Jackie Rabon’s nose and used them to correct her spinal cord injury. The once paralyzed girl now walks.

However, this debate has been completely changed by the research in Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells, or iPS cells. These are adult skin cells that scientists may soon be able to reprogram into embryonic-like stem cells, without killing a single human embryo!

This discovery is no small thing. In fact, the ability to reprogram cells like iPS cells was named the “biggest scientific breakthrough of 2008” by Science magazine.

Bernadine Healy, the former head of the pro-HESCR National institutes of Health and the American Red Cross published an article last week in U.S News and World Report. What some may find surprising is her disapproval of Obama’s stem cell policy.

Here are some choice quotes:

  • "Even for strong backers of embryonic stem cell research, the decision is no longer as self-evident as it was, because there is markedly diminished need for expanding these cell lines for either patient therapy or basic research.”
  • "In fact, during the first six weeks of Obama's term, several events reinforced the notion that embryonic stem cells, once thought to hold the cure for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and diabetes, are obsolete.”
  • “To date, most of the stem cell triumphs that the public hears about involve the infusion of adult stem cells. We've just recently seen separate research reports of patients with spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis benefiting from adult stem cell therapy.”
  • “A second kind of stem cell that has triumphed is an entirely new creation called iPS (short for induced pluripotent stem cell), a blockbuster discovery made in late 2007.”

Obviously there is still more work to be done, and the jury is still out on whether iPS cell research can be done ethically. There is no question however on whether we can ethically pursue HESCR. We cannot ethically conduct Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research as long as human embryos are being killed for their body parts.

Amazingly, not only did most media outlets fail to report on iPS cells, but it looks like they all left out the fact that President Obama rescinded President Bush’s executive order funding Adult Stem Cell Research (ASCR). Now who’s anti-science?

#2. Omitting that the diseases everyone is talking about curing (diabetes, Parkinson's, paralysis) have already been treated with adult stem cells.

Who did this?
CBS News; New York Times; LA Times; Newsweek; BBC; NPR; The Guardian; Fresno KMPH (FOX 26); Fresno ABC (Channel 30); Fresno CBS (Channel 47)

Why is it significant?
The reason so many Americans support the killing of human embryos for research is because of the desire to see diseases cured. Perhaps if more Americans understood that this can be accomplished without killing human embryos, maybe this “complicated moral decision” would suddenly not be so tough.

Naturally we want to see people afflicted with painful diseases treated or even cured, but IF these embryos are individual living human beings, as science says they are, THEN we should not kill them for their body parts. Of course, if it can be proven scientifically that these embryos are not human beings then I will promptly withdraw my objection and put my full support behind this research.

I patiently wait for even one person to make a good scientific argument that the embryos used in human embryonic stem cell research are not human…but I'm not holding my breath.

#3. Perpetuating the myth that stem cell research will likely cure Alzheimer's disease

Who did this?

Why is it significant?

No one disagrees with the fact that Alzheimer's is a heartwrenching and tragic disease. On a personal note, I volunteered as a pianist for a nursing home serving Alzheimer's patients for several years. After watching the disease slowly take over the minds of

my audience, I can empathize with those who have a parent, grandparent or other loved one suffering from this condition.

HESCR advocates have included Alzheimer's in their list of talking points for years when talking about what diseases may be cured. This has caused Nancy Reagan to become a public supporter of HESCR, but it seems that Mrs. Reagan and many others have been misinformed.

According to Wesley Smith, writing in The Weekly Standard,

"Researchers have apparently known for some time that embryonic stem cells will not be an effective treatment for Alzheimer's, because as two researchers told a Senate subcommittee in May, it is a 'whole brain disease,' rather than a cellular disorder (such as Parkinson's). This has generally been kept out of the news. But now, Washington Post correspondent Rick Weiss, has blown the lid off of the scam, reporting that while useful abstract information might be gleaned about Alzheimer's through embryonic stem cell research, 'stem cell experts confess . . . that of all the diseases that may be someday cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer's is among the least likely to benefit.'"

This doesn't mean Alzheimer's disease won't ever be cured. It just means that the cure will probably not come from stem cell research, of any kind. It will probably be a separate area of scientific research. It is therefore, at best, disingenuous for pro-HESCR advocates to continue to claim that Alzheimer's disease will likely be cured by their research.

#4. Omitting the dangers of HESCR

Who did this?
ABC News; CBS News; New York Times; LA Times; Newsweek; BBC; NPR; The Guardian; Fresno KMPH (FOX 26); Fresno ABC (Channel 30); Fresno CBS (Channel 47)

Why is it significant?
Because we just might kill some adult human beings by starting human clinical trials prematurely. See,
something interesting happens during about 50% of animal trials with embryonic stem cell research: the stem cells form tumors. (Just what America needs - more cancer.) Embryonic stem cells have the potential to become anything, but scientists have not yet learned how to harness that power. In other words, although scientists can engineer some ESC's to become a particular cell type, and sometimes the stem cell obeys, and sometimes it doesn’t.

For example, a man in China had embryonic stem cells transplanted into his brain to cure Parkinson’s disease. While some of the stem cells became brain cells like they were supposed to, the others became hair and bone cells! The man died a painful death as bone tissue grew into his brain and killed him. (1)

Another shocking result occurred at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons, and was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in March, 2001. In some of the patients, the implanted embryonic cells apparently grew too well, churning out so much of a chemical that controls movement that the patients writhed and jerked uncontrollably. Dr. Paul E. Greene called the uncontrollable movements developed by some patients as “absolutely devastating.” The New York Times quoted him saying,

“They chew constantly, their fingers go up and down, their wrists flex and distend. It’s a real nightmare. And we can’t selectively turn it off. No more fetal transplants. We are absolutely and adamantly convinced that this should be considered for research only.”

More recently, news came out in February 2009 that fetal stem cells injected into a young boy in Israel caused disabling, if not deadly, tumors. (2) Bernadine Healy included this story in her article, saying that the news should cause Obama to instruct the Food and Drug Administration to "take another look" at its decision to allow the biotech firm Geron to use embryonic stem cells in a clinical trial involving human patients.

Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith made a similar point:

"Which brings us to the Geron license from the FDA. Geron's work with its product has been exclusively with mice, which were not kept alive nearly the four years it took for this patient to develop stem cell-caused tumors. This raises a question of whether, in light of this report, the FDA should revisit its go ahead to Geron to use ES cell-derived cells in human beings,particularly since it might take years to learn whether the product causes tumors."

Of course, there are afflicted people that are willing to risk such gruesome results, in hopes of being able to recover. This is certainly understandable, and even laudable, as their risk, in addition to helping to cure their own disease, may allow scientists to come closer to curing others. But these patients have two possible methods of experimental treatment: HESCR, which has not produced a single effective treatment and has resulted in painful and gruesome ends, and ASCR, which has produced cures, and has not had such dangerous consequences. Why then does President Obama push funding for the method that does not work, and pull funding for the method that does?

#5. Confusing or combining reproductive cloning with research cloning

Who did this?
CBS News; New York Times; LA Times; Fresno KMPH (FOX 26); Fresno ABC (Channel 30); Fresno CBS (Channel 47)

Why is it significant?
There are two different types of cloning: reproductive cloning, and research cloning. The term "reproductive cloning" has been used to describe when a human clone is implanted and delivered as a full term pregnancy. "Research,"

"experimental" or "therapeutic cloning" have been the terms used for the other type of cloning. In this, a human embryo is cloned and experimented upon in his or her first few weeks of life and then killed.

Opinion polls show that the vast majority of Americans disapprove of both types of cloning. (83% against reproductive cloning, versus 81% against research cloning.) (3)

In another poll asking Americans to rate the morality of 16 social issues, 86% said human cloning was morally wrong. In fact, the only social issues ranked lower than human cloning were extramarital affairs and polygamy! (4)

Many media outlets noted that President Obama supposedly condemned cloning, saying “And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.”

Read that again. Did President Obama condemn all human cloning, or did he only condemn reproductive cloning?

Amazing! We just figured out what practically every other media outlet missed.

By the way, the only reason the list of media outlets that missed this is shorter than the first three on this list is because most of them didn’t mention cloning in their article. Fox News is the only media outlet who mentioned Obama’s remarks on cloning and then explained the difference between reproductive and research cloning.

Obama's careful wording here is similar to the misleading language used in last year's "Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act," sponsored by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. This bill doesn't close the door on cloning, it simply redefine's cloning so that only reproductive cloning counts, and research cloning becomes referred to as "nuclear transplantation research." Redefining words like that is clever, but it's also extremely deceptive to the general public.

Why would scientists want access to research cloning when they already have the right and the government funding to use “leftover” embryos from in vitro fertilization for research? One reason: there is simply not enough “leftover” embryos to produce the results HESCR scientists have been promising for years.

People from both sides of the debate often talk about 400,000 or 500,000 frozen embryos that could be researched on. This number is simply incorrect. There ARE that many embryos currently frozen, but most of them are NOT available for research. Most of them are being held for later use by their families. According to a 2002 study, only 2.8% of the nation’s frozen embryos, roughly 11,000 total, were designated for research. (5) Only a small number of those 11,000 embryos would actually yield stem cells. Using what it calls “a conservative estimate” the study calculated that only about 275 stem cell lines could actually be developed from the embryos available for research. And even then, the study concedes that this number “is probably an overestimate.”

There is general agreement in the U.S. that the selling of body parts, even for medical transplantation is immoral. The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 (NOTA) bans the buying and selling of organs, and the Senate Report accompanying NOTA stated that "human body parts should not be viewed as commodities." This is not too far from what would be happening with research cloning. Yet instead of merely purchasing a body part for transplantation, we taxpayers would be funding the mass creation of human beings for the sole purpose of killing them for their body parts. In a future and hypothetical sense, the movie "The Island" posed the same question as a premise for their storyline: rich celebrities pay a bio-tech corporation to grow their own clone underground, so that when the celebrity has a future health problem, his or her clone can be killed and the clone’s body parts harvested to prolong the celebrities life.

What does it mean for our society morally and ethically when we are creating human beings for their body parts?

#6. Creating a false choice that “leftover” embryos will either be used for research or be killed

Who did this?
  • CBS News: "Mr. Bush and his supporters said they were defending human life; days-old embryos - typically from fertility-clinic leftovers otherwise destined to be thrown away - are destroyed for the stem cells."
  • Fox News: "Dr. Curt Civin, whose research allowed scientists to isolate stem cells and who now serves as the founding director of the University of Maryland Center for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, disagrees with those who say embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong. "This was already life that was going to be destroyed," he said. "The choice is throw them away or use them for research."
  • Newsweek: Quoting Amy Comstock Rick, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR), a pro-HESCR advocacy group: "Personally, I have trouble with the ethical argument that it is inappropriate to use these embryos to save lives, but somehow it's appropriate to throw them in the Dumpster. I don't understand that."

Why is it significant?

Those are not the only choices. Human embryos that are no longer wanted by the family can also be placed for adoption. Organizations like Snowflakes have been helping couples through embryo adoption for years now. President Bush has even flown several of these families to the White House to stand behind him when talking about the issue, pointing to the babies, and remarking that “these boys and girls are not spare parts.”

Families would have to consent to having the embryos adopted, and I think many families would make this choice if told about the possibility. Many view adoption as a much better option than donating living embryos to be killed for research that can be done without killing anybody.

#7. Dehumanizing human embryos

Who did this?
  • ABC News: “Embryos, which are balls of cells created by putting a sperm cell and an egg cell together and allowing the result to divide, are valuable to researchers because they represent a source of undifferentiated cells not programmed to be any type of cell in particular.”
  • CBS News: “First off, let’s talk about what embryonic stem cell research entails. An embryo is ‘a clump of cells that would fit barely on the head of a pin,’ as Susan L. Solomon, CEO of the New York Stem Cell Foundation, says.”

Why is it significant?
It’s much easier to pacify our feelings toward human destruction if the people in question are dehumanized. Who would care about a simple “ball of cells?” But embryologists know that there is so much more going on here than a simple clump of cells.

"In the hours of conception every aspect of the genetic inheritance for a new individual will be determined once and for all: to be a boy or girl, with brown, or with blue eyes, fair or dark, tall or short; all the rich detail of physical attributes from head to toes... The new genetic program is achieved when the two parent pronuclei come to lie side by side within the egg for perhaps a day, as their contents combine in the ultimate biological union of male and female. In the instant when the union is consummated, the whole egg substance divides into two entirely new cells, identical to one another. These are the first two cells of the baby-to-be. So begins the first day of the first nine months of life." (6)

Beginning Life, Geraldine Lux Flanagan, 1996

“The only thing necessary for [the embryo’s] growth and development, as with the rest of us, is oxygen, food, water, and healthy interaction with its natural environment, because this organism, like the newborn, the infant, and the adolescent, needs only to develop in accordance with her given nature that is present at conception.” (7)

Francis Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, 2007

#8. Responding to a Strawman argument that pro-lifers are concerned about embryos being misused in laboratories (other than killing them)

Who did this?
  • Fresno ABC (Channel 30): “As for the fear that embryos will be misused in the laboratory, Dr. Bush says there are many checks and balances in place to prevent that. "They have to be donated, "he said, "There has to be consent from the individuals. It's not some mad scientist in the lab doing Frankenstein kind of science. There is a protocol that has to be followed.”

Why is it significant?
According to, "a straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker

than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it."

Pro-lifers are not concerned about embryos being misused in a laboratory. We are concerned about embryos being killed in a laboratory. The protocols being followed end with the embryo being killed. I don’t think HESC researchers are “mad scientists” doing “Frankenstein science.” I think these are scientists that have a different view of the value of young human beings than many Americans, and that is the concern.

#9. Bush’s policy restricted tax dollars being used on “all” stem cell research

Who did this?
  • Fresno ABC (Channel 30): "President Obama makes another sharp break with his predecessor making a symbolic change in signing off on the use of taxpayer funds for stem cell research. In 2001 President George W. Bush limited the use of taxpayer money for stem cell research out of concern about the destruction of human embryos."

Why is it significant?

President Bush’s stem cell policy did not restrict tax dollars for stem cell research. It restricted tax

dollars to be used to kill more human embryos. It allowed tax dollars to be spent on research using the embryonic stem cell lines that had already been created, as well as funding research with adult stem cells.

On the contrary, President Obama is the one restricting tax dollars for stem cell research. In fact the only type of stem cell research President Obama seems interested in funding is the very type that has consistently failed to produce any positive results.

Another common misnomer is that President Bush outlawed embryonic stem cell research. He didn’t. Scientists have always been able to conduct HESCR, even during every year of President Bush’s term in office; they just had to use private funding to do their research. However this doesn’t always make it easy for HESCR scientists because private funding for HESCR has dropped steadily, because HESCR is simply one of the worst investments ever. Millions of dollars have been spent on this and there has still been no return. There’s the idea of a return, but adult stem cell research has successfully treated at least 73 diseases! Thus much of the private money has gone into non-HESCR therapies which are showing greater return.

Ironically, Investor's Business Daily just published an editorial on why private investors have been fleeing from HESCR for some time now. According to them:

  • "The president keeps a promise by lifting restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research — what he calls "the gold standard" of such research. Judging by results, fool's gold is more like it."
  • "What has handcuffed our scientists is the difficulty of controlling embryonic stem cells and what they develop into."
  • "Venture capitalists think IPS cells are promising and are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Last year, Kleiner Perkins, the veteran Silicon Valley venture capital firm that helped found the biotechnology industry, announced it was backing a new Bay Area company, iZumi Bio Inc., which will work on further developing the technology for creating and using IPS cells developed from adult stem cells."
  • " If embryonic stem cells are so promising, why aren't venture capitalists lining up and why does ESCR need federal funding?"


To be clear, I'm not offended that major media outlets aren't advocating the pro-life position. They shouldn't advocate for either side. However they should attempt to present the pertinent facts in any given story to help the public gain a well-rounded understanding of the issues at hand. This simply didn't happen in the Obama/stem cell story.

This is not a small news story, ladies and gentlemen. This isn’t like a news channel failing to report that a large freeway is shut down due to an accident, and a bunch of people are late for work. This is a major event with profound moral and societal implications. President Obama left the door open to allowing American scientists to grow human beings for their body parts. This is a major ethical issue, not a trivial question about whether you should go vegan or not, and the mass media decided that it wasn’t important.

We should be ever vigilant keeping our eyes and ears wide open when watching the news, looking out for any bias or obvious omissions of facts. We can only do that if we are already informed about the issue. Don't depend on major media outlets to educate you. Look for the facts yourself.

P.S. There are some great stem cell research resources on the web, including, and Wesley Smith's blog.

1: "Survival and proliferation of nonneural tissues, with obstruction of cerebral ventricles, in a parkinsonian patient treated with fetal allografts.” Neurology, Volume 46, Issue 5. May 1, 1996.
2: Ninette Amariglio, Abraham Hirshberg, Bernd W. Scheithauer, Yoram Cohen, Ron Loewenthal, Luba Trakhtenbrot, Nurit Paz, Maya Koren- Michowitz, Dalia Waldman, Leonor Leider-Trejo, Amos Toren, Shlomi Constantini, Gideon Rechavi. PLoS Med Vol. 6, No. 2, e1000029, published online 17 February 2009. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000029.
3: International Communications Research, surveyed over 1,000 adults, May 19-23, 2006. Download PDF.
4: Gallup poll, surveyed over 1,000 adults, May 10-13, 2007.
5: 2002 survey by the RAND Corporation of IVF clinics in the U.S.
6: Flanagan, Geraldine Lux, Beginning Life. New York: DK, 1996. pp. 14, 23.
7: Beckwith, Francis. Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 67-68.

Click here to follow us on Facebook. Click here to follow us on Twitter. Click here to donate.

If you liked this article, you might also like "8 Bad Arguments for Embryonic Stem Cell Research" or "Stem Cell Research - What You Need to Know." Check back soon for more articles!

Josh Brahm is the Director of Education for Right to Life of Central California's Fresno/Madera Office. He hosts a weekly youth-oriented pro-life podcast: "Life Report - Pro-Life Talk. Real World Answers." Josh is available to speak to your church or school. Click here for his bio/vitae.

Friday, April 10, 2009

Thank You Jesus, We Love You

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Planned Parenthood's record - They cleared 1 Billion Dollars according to their 2007-2008 Annual Report

Taken from Jill Stanek's blog
April 9, 2009

Planned Parenthood unfazed by tanking economy: Cleared another $1 billion 07-08

UPDATE, 1:05p: Here's another good chart, received from the same friend. PPFA stands for Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Click to enlarge:

pp adoption.jpg

UPDATE, 1p: I heard a good proverb yesterday: "If you want more of something, you subsidize; if you want less, you tax."

Here's an example of the former. I received the following chart from a government friend on PP's funding as it correlates to the number of abortions it commits. Click to enlarge...

pp government funding.jpg

According to its 06-07 annual report, Planned Parenthood cleared $1 billion in income for the 1st time, $1.018 billion to be exact.

According to its 07-08 annual report, the tanking American economy certainly didn't hurt PP. In fact, PP improved its bottom line to $1.038 billion. PP ended the reporting year with $1.014 billion in assets, up by almost 10%. That's pretty good!

PP got 1/3 of its income from we the taxpayers: $350 million, up from $337 million last year. Click to enlarge:

pp annual report 07-08 slide 1.JPG

Abortions were up, too, from 290k last year to 305k this year.

In the next chart we see PP's statistical trickery. PP's report states abortion accounts for only 3% of all its services. But 10% of everyone (including men) who walk into a PP walk out an abortee.

Put another way, as its statistics show, 1 in 4 who get a pregnancy test at PP will abort. It would be interesting to know how many test negative, 1 in 4, 2 in 4? It is possible - likely - that at least half of mothers with positive pregnancy tests at PP abort. Click to enlarge:

pp annual report 07-08 slide 2.JPG has more insights on PP's latest annual report, as does Life Decisions International.

posted on April 9, 2009 10:30 AM

We have to keep praying and speaking out!! Pam

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Washington, DC ( -- A White House mailroom staffer has confirmed that nearly 2.5 million red envelopes have made their way to President Barack Obama to protest his pro-abortion record. The staff member says the campaign is one of the largest efforts he can recall in his 35 years working at the White House. Click HERE to read article.

Monday, April 6, 2009

How Can People Agree With This????
Has Our Nation Gone That Dark?

Taken from Jill Stanek's blog

April 6, 2009

New Episcopal Divinity School prez: "Abortion is a blessing... holy work," abortionists are "saints"

Here's one I missed last week while on vacation. From the Boston Globe, April 4:

Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge... the Rev. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale will be its new president...

ragsdale epis.jpg

Ragsdale... is best known as an abortion rights activist who has sat on the boards of NARAL... and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice....

She is also openly gay....

Ragsdale... recalled that 3 women, spying her collar, once tried to keep her out of a meeting room for NARAL - even though she was a member of the league's board.

"I've experienced far more resistance and discrimination in the progressive community for being a Christian than I do in the Christian community for being a lesbian," she said....

But conservative bloggers are furiously criticizing the appointment, citing some of Ragsdale's remarks about abortion rights.

Interesting that the Globe didn't post those remarks, from a NARAL speech Ragsdale gave in 2007:

The ability to enjoy God's good gift of sexuality without compromising one's education, life's work, or ability to put to use God's gifts and call is simply blessing.

These are the 2 things I want you, please, to remember - abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.

I want to thank all of you who protect this blessing... the health care providers, doctors, nurses, technicians, receptionists, who put your lives on the line to care for others (you are heroes -- in my eyes, you are saints); the escorts and the activists; the lobbyists and the clinic defenders; all of you.

You're engaged in holy work.

[Photo courtesy of European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development ]

Right now, I can feel my stomach churning and my head pounding. Sickness and righteous anger are the two things causing this manifestation in my body. Speaking of manifestations, it is obvious from this article the United States of America is no longer a Nation under God, or a Nation with any common sense for that matter. I really believe, my friends, we are going to experience some real changes soon. People wanted change, well, they are going to get it. But I believe when it does come, it will not be the change they hoped for. It will be something evil that will overtake them, unless they cry out to the Lord. Pray, pray, pray, my prayer warrior friends. Pam

Sunday, April 5, 2009

Day 40 and Last day of the Campaign!
368 Babies Saved!

Well fellow prayer warriors, today marks the last day of the Spring Campaign for 40 Days for Life, but not the actual end!! No, I believe it is the beginning. Denise, co-coordinator here in Raleigh, said something different is happening. More people are stepping up and speaking out, God is definitely moving. This is just the beginning. It's funny because obviously, according to society we are outnumbered, but according to God's way of doing things, that is just when He likes to step in! I don't know about you, but it is an exciting time to be on the Lord's side! Let's pray He opens the eyes and hearts of many, especially our President. Let's continue to pray for President Obama, for we are to bless our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us.

I haven't written lately because there has been so much going on in the Pro Life Movement, and it seemed better to pass that information along to keep everyone informed. But with the conclusion of 40 Days for Life I would like to share with you a couple of things the Lord seemed to impress upon my heart:

1) Everything I do is because of my love for the Lord, because He first loved me, and anything I do of any worth or value is from Him.
2) I am not responsible for the results, only my obedience and love for others, and even that comes from Him.
3) It is truly a sheer joy to lay down my life for God and others. No drug, no alcohol, no sexual encounter, no money, no nothing, has ever compared to the joy I have experienced from doing God's will.
4) There is something special brothers and sisters in Christ share when on the front lines of battle, and it is an honor to serve with everyone in this battle.
5) God is beyond any of the most glorious words I could ever say. He is God.
6) I love Him because He first loved me.

If any of you have felt the Lord impress something upon your hearts and would like to share, please do.

We are also starting a Pro Life Ministry at our church, with two of the projects being to pray at the clinic one afternoon a month, and to have a church baby shower for a Crisis Pregnancy Center. Those two things are very simple, but what if we had 30 more churches to participate! It would cover the entire month for prayer at the clinic, and provide plenty of resources for the Crisis Pregnancy Center, which struggles to make ends meet sometimes! Regardless, let's all continue to pray and help in every way we can to protect the sanctity of life that comes from our God and Creator!! I am so thankful, for tomorrow is a new and fresh day, with great plans to be made about the upcoming fall campaign, and getting many more churches involved! So don't slow down prayer warriors, and thanks for everything all of you have done! It has mattered a lot in the Kingdom of God!!

With great love for all of you!!