Month: February 2015

Safe & Simple Medical Protocol to Reverse RU-486

Priests for Life and the American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists hosted a press conference in Washington, D.C., on Mon. February 23rd to spread the word that a simple and safe medical protocol has been developed that is saving babies whose mothers have taken the first drug of the two-drug procedure known as “RU-486.”

Priests for Life Medical Advisor Dr. Matt Harrison did the first-ever reversal in 2007. The child he saved is now a beautiful and healthy 7-year-old girl.

The video shows Father Frank with Priests for Life Medical Advisor, Dr Matt Harrison and doctors who have saved 127 babies by reversing RU486 abortions. 49 of those babies are still in the womb, and one of them was there with them at the National Press Conference, proving the success of the RU-486 reversal protocol!

For additional information, see Fr. Frank’s article HERE.

Advertisements

Aborting boys because you hate men

6Patrice Lewis on ‘gender terrorist’ who sacrificed son on ‘altar of feminism’

Published: 02/13/2015 at 7:50 PM
Original Article from WND.com

It was a blog post so revolting it sent reverberations across the ocean and shocked even ardent leftists. It was so brazenly horrifying some called it a hoax. Internet traffic was so high it caused the website to crash for a day or so.

It seems a feminist going by the name “Lana” wrote about aborting her baby at five months for no other reason than he was a boy. Her logic? “I couldn’t bring another monster into the world. We already have enough enemies as it is.”

What’s so appalling about this incident isn’t just that she ripped an innocent child from her womb for no other excuse than its gender. What is truly shocking is Lana’s scathing, dripping hatred of men, despite the requirements of what it took to get pregnant in the first place.

“In the spring of 2012, I found out that I was pregnant,” wrote Lana on Injustice Stories. “I had a good idea who the donator was, but money wasn’t really an issue, and I knew that I would be a good mother-like figure for the child by myself. I have always believed in the right for all women to have a choice in terminating their pregnancy, but when I confirmed the diagnosis about a month into it, I decided that I WAS ready to have this child.”

(She had a “good idea” who the “donator” was. Holy cow, how many of those “monstrous” donators was she sleeping with?)

And then, while flying to San Francisco to join an Occupy Wall Street rally, poor widdle Lana had a life-changing experience: After telling the man sitting next to her on the plane of her destination (in other words, confirming she’s a social leach), he zinged back with a one-line insult that left her feeling “verbally and emotionally raped.” “By the time we landed, my outlook had changed. I could no longer depend on men to be an ally of the cause,” she wrote.

OK, fine. Whatever. Life went on. Her baby grew. Lana dreamed of “teaching my daughter from a young age tolerance [cough cough] and feminist ideals. Choosing the right all-girls daycare, then elementary school, all so that she could grow up and thrive in an environment where women are told that they can do anything that they want to do. No man will be around to hurt her progress, no boys there to demean her or call her names.” [Cough. Sorry, had to clear my throat there.]

And then – the horror – Lana learned she was carrying a boy. “I started crying, weeping at the thought of what I was about to curse the world with.”

(Yes, those “cursed” men. The kind she willingly slept with in such quantity that she couldn’t even definitively name the “donator.”)

Once the shock of the baby’s gender wore off, Lana knew what she had to do: get rid of it. “My fetus became my warden,” she wrote, and so she toddled off to kill it. After the “procedure,” she said: “My body’s betrayal was no more, I was free, and for the first time since the airplane incident, I felt strong. I had done something positive, something that would actually make a difference, something good. …”

And then – get this – Lana was surprised by the outrage over her decision, to which she wrote, “I don’t care. … Most of you reading probably have no idea what it is like to go through the process of debating whether or not to abort a pregnancy, let alone the actual experience of it. To me, the experience was liberating, the emotions I felt when deciding what I should do, and after learning my fetus was male was something I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. Coming out of it a liberated woman though was more than worth it. … I stand by my decision to abort my baby because it was a male. … If the curse returns, I would do the exact same thing all over again.”

Pay attention to the language this woman uses. Monster. Worst enemy. Curse. Aborting a boy is positive. Good. Freeing. Liberating.

This, my friends, is what extreme feminism is all about: a seething hatred of anything with a Y chromosome and contempt for the “patriarchy.” Even helpless unborn babies are not immune to this hatred. Even one’s own flesh and blood is not immune.

“I don’t hate men,” Lana claims. [Cough cough] “I hate the patriarchy, what men, and even some women, turn into, I wasn’t going to let that happen with my offspring. The chances were greater that it would with a male, it was unacceptable.”

Well, good news, Lana: Your offspring will never contribute to that patriarchal oppression because you chose to rip him apart and flush him down a toilet. You literally sacrificed your son on the altar of feminism. Congratulations. You’re a Real Woman.

Alleging surprise at the fury that rolled toward her, Lana replied, “I cannot believe some of the emails that have been forwarded to me. Do people really exist who want to see me dead because of what I chose to do with my own body? Those are the minds of mentally disturbed individuals.”

No, Lana; people aren’t mad because of what you did to your own body. They’re livid because of what you did to your son’s body.

Lana has no legitimate, logical “excuse” for her abortion. She cannot plead poverty, since at the beginning of her post she says “money wasn’t really an issue.” She also wrote that “carrying the banner of the Feminist Movement” meant eschewing a career, suggesting a degree of financial independence.

Nor can she plead medical reasons, since apparently she was in blooming health during her pregnancy. Nor can she plead birth defects, since she admits her baby was “progressing in a healthy manner.”

No, she’s merely ticked off because an unknown “suit jockey” on an airplane several months before gave her a one-line insult. For this, she kills her own innocent baby.

Is it sane and normal to loathe half of the earth’s population merely for possessing a Y chromosome? Tell me, who is mentally disturbed?

Lana’s taunting lack of remorse and pride in her actions are what apparently shocked people. “If the curse returns, I would do the exact same thing all over again.” There’s a certain tone of “Nyah nyah, you can’t stop me!” that is both childish and odious.

As one commenter put it, “She committed a hate crime with her child as the victim.” Another man wrote, “You have topped every horrible thing I’ve ever seen during my three deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. It takes quite a bit to shock me these days, and you managed to do it.”

I’ve often lamented the evils feminism has wrought on our society. It’s clear Lana is extreme even by leftists standards, but I don’t hear many feminists protesting about abortion (excuse me, reproductive health) in general or sex-selective abortions in particular. Therefore I must conclude they tacitly approve.

Face it, Lana. You killed your son because you are a petulant brat who isn’t mature enough to handle a stranger’s insult. You took it out on the innocent baby you conceived by slutting around. You are not a feminist; you are a gender terrorist. Pray for forgiveness. Pray very very hard.

And please … stop having sex. Or at least get sterilized, lest you conceive another “monster.”

Ohio may become second state to ban abortion based on Down Syndrome

5February 11, 2015
Steven Ertelt
Columbus, OH
Original article

The percentage of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome before birth and who eventually become victims of abortions is outlandishly high. Studies show
somewhere in the neighborhood of 70-90 percent of unborn babies with Down syndrome are victimized by abortions.

North Dakota eventually became the first state in the United States to ban abortions on babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome. With the governor’s signature on the ban in 2013, Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple took that state in a decidedly pro-life direction.

Eventually a judge dismissed a legal challenge abortion activists brought against the legislation.

Now, the state of Ohio is considering a similar ban on abortions of babies with Down syndrome. Naturally, abortion backers have no problem with aborting babies simply because they have the disability.

Only one U.S. state, North Dakota, has a ban on abortions after the discovery of a fetal anomaly. Indiana lawmakers introduced a similar bill last month, although a bill much like it died in 2013.

Anti-abortion activists aren’t trying to prohibit women from receiving fetal diagnoses through amniocentesis, said Stephanie Ranade Krider, executive director of Ohio Right to Life. But they fear women are making decisions to terminate pregnancies after receiving only a preliminary screening, even before they have amnio.

“We’re never opposed to people having as much information as they can have about their baby,” Krider said. Many times, Krider said, “Those are just screening tests,” citing a December investigation by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting.

“We think there’s a lot of misinformation out there,” she said.Abortion rights activists condemned the proposal as over-reaching.

At the time North Dakota adopted its bill, Americans United for Life president Charmaine Yoest praised it.

“A civil society does not discriminate against people – born and unborn – for their sex or for disability.  We should be celebrating diversity, not destroying it,” she said. “Women in particular have been targeted for death in the womb, and we’ve also seen dramatic abortion rates for children with disabilities which put them at risk for extinction. Gov. Jack Dalrymple, Rep. Bette Grande and the legislators in North Dakota have shown courageous humanity in passing this legislation.”

Yoest said that, while federal and state laws protect women and the disabled from discrimination, the unborn are not similarly protected.

“Starve Alzheimer’s Patients” Pushed Again

By Wesley J. Smith
February 8, 2015

The principle that all patients must always receive humane care is under pronounced assault in bioethics, Indeed, some bioethicists now argue that nursing homes should be required to starve Alzheimer’s patients to death–even if they willingly eat, and presumably even if the patient begs for food–if so instructed in an advance medical directive.

1To show you how the culture of death corrupts, spoon feeding isn’t a medical treatment. It is basic humane care–akin to keeping clean, warm, or turning to prevent bed sores. Just as the latter three would never be withheld regardless of an advance directive, neither should food and water!

But suicide pushers now teach people how to kill themselves by starvation, called “voluntary stop eating and drinking” (VSED) in the culture of death trade. So, these bioethicists say that those who aren’t competent to commit VSED, should have the right to have others kill them slowly by refusing to provide them food and waterwhen they are capable of eating and drinking by mouth.

“VSED-by-proxy” is supported increasingly in high places. For the second time (that I know of), a supportive article was published in the prestigious Hastings Center Report. From, “Controlling the End Game of Dementia,” by Paul T. Menzel and M. Colette Chandler-Cramer:

Advance directives to withhold food and water by mouth add an important option not contingent on happening to need life-sustaining treatment. Existing U.S. law does not provide such directives a bright green light, but it provides considerable logical support.

Competent patients already have the legal right to die by stopping eating and drinking, as well as the legal right to direct refusal of treatment in advance, including treatments absolutely necessary for continued life. So if becoming incompetent doesn’t cause someone to lose her rights but only means the rights have to be invoked by a proxy, why should becoming incompetent cause someone to lose the right to die by refusing to eat and drink?

Understand: This is not refusing a feeding tube–which is deemed medical treatment and can be refused by advance directive. Ditto, antibiotics, etc…

Rather, to repeat myself so that the point is sure to sink in–it would force nursing homes and care facilities to starve patients to death who willingly eat and drink!

The advocacy strategy here, of course, is to allow lethal injecting Alzheimer’s patients, e.g., “Why should we be forced to starve these people when we could easily inject them?” The answer is: We shouldn’t starve them! 

The way things are going, the only people allowed in medicine will be those willing to kill. How scary is that?

“A” is for Abortion Clinic Apostle

I recently came across a young woman who is an abortion clinic escort. She asked why someone would stand outside an abortion clinic and preach. She calls him “A.”

>> “A” is a regular and is known for his attempts to connect with clients and companions in his approach of ‘I was just like you. I understand you. I care for you.’ This is “A.”

In this clip below, he is talking to clients and companions waiting by the entrance for the doors to open. (Note: video of minister was changed to audio only by blog owner)


“A” increases his volume after the clients enter the clinic, but his message is always the same. Escorts have heard him so many times, they can recite the story he shares on the sidewalk. ‘I wasted my life until I was 23. Then I read the Bible. My friends said they would find out about Jesus later. One died in a car wreck. He didn’t have time to find out. You never know what is going to happen. You need to find out about Jesus today.’

One of the interesting things about “A” recently is how he speaks about his wife’s pregnancy. When he first started saying, “My baby is 19 weeks old,” we thought he was talking about a born baby. No, he was talking about his wife’s pregnancy. Recently, “A” let us know his baby was 26 weeks old, adding that the baby recently became legally safe from abortion doctors. An escort observed, “I wonder if he thinks that abortion doctors do drive-by abortions and will randomly attempt an abortion if his wife gets too close to a clinic?”

My question is if he cares for the clients and companions so much, why does he speak words meant to shame and harass them for their decision? I know that is a rhetorical question and won’t be answered, but it doesn’t matter if you scream your words or softly speak them. You are still there to interfere with a legal, medical decision by any way you can. <<

I will be referring to this post in an upcoming Part 2 post which will also be one of personal testimony.

We Need to Help Patients Battling Depression, Not Push Them Into Assisted Suicide

Article by Patricia Russo for LifeNews.com.

My concern with the legalization of assisted suicide is the psychological impact on the rest of society. I am writing from my personal experience.

I have dealt with depression for almost 50 of my 63 years. I have been suicidal on numerous occasions and at one point, within the past ten years, I experienced active suicidal ideation for a continuous six-month period almost 24 hours per day. I even carried a knife in my handbag, just waiting for the right moment to stab myself.

When I learned of the assisted suicide story of the Canadian woman who went to Switzerland, I personally heard the message that my life was not worth living. That assisted suicide death gave me the message that when things get really bad and there doesn’t seem to be any hope, I should give up my struggle. Being actively suicidal is often a terminal illness.

I have beehands9n struggling during the past 35 years, in particular, through multiple varieties of therapy and medication and through hospitalizations.

Adults are role models. No amount of denial will change that fact of human nature. Children imitate what they see their parents, teachers, idols and even their peers doing.

I am a parent and I want to show my children that one can grow through the struggle. I watched my own parents leading very unhappy lives and living in an unhappy marriage. They were not good role models for me, but I also understand that they tried their best, in spite of their limitations. My father was diagnosed with a ‘nervous disorder’ in the 1950’s and was treated with barbiturates. Looking back, I can see that he was seriously depressed much of the time and he was unable to work because of his illness. My mother’s depression was never diagnosed, nor acknowledged by anyone, but I saw her endless tears. When one is ill or depressed, one is very often also angry, even if the anger is involuntary, and I witnessed for many years my parents’ anger, especially towards each other. My own depression developed in my early teenage years and I modeled my parents’ anger during the next decades of my life.

I am a role model for my children, even though they are now adults. I have warned them of the strong family history of depression and that they should be alert to its signs and symptoms in themselves, in order to get help early. I want my children to see and believe that life involves struggle, pain, grief, illness and growing old. I need to grow old with dignity and even with joy, just to prove to my children that it is possible to do so. I want them to grieve for me at my natural death. If I were to die by my own hand or with the intentional involvement of someone else, I know that my children would have a much more difficult time not taking their own lives when facing a serious trial in life.


With the prevalence of suicide in our society, especially among the young, how can we endorse this truly devastating role-modeling of assisted suicide? How can we dare to call it anything other than suicide?


The idea of “dying with dignity” is being deliberately presented in a romantic manner to the public, as suggested by the image of a person dying in the arms of a loving spouse. Those who are contemplating suicide are most often very depressed, feeling hopeless, alone, isolated, and often unloved.

When the suicidal thoughts overtake me, I feel completely alone, unable to communicate, I lose any sense of personal identity and I want to scream from the severity of the mental pain.

The image of dying in the arms of one who loves you is very painful to behold by one who is suicidal and feeling unloved, and increases their feelings of worthlessness. If someone wants to die who is loved, how much more does one want to die who is not loved.

Those with serious depression and suicidal tendencies need encouragement to live and grow into healthier attitudes. They do not need societal inducement to give it all up. Unfortunately, they are also usually unable to speak publicly on their own behalf.

Patricia Russo writes for the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.