Thursday, August 31, 2006

How dare you speak!!!!!!!!!!! Did I tell you you could speak?!!!!!!!!!!

His Eye is on the Sparrow: Ethel Waters

And perhaps most memorable to many people of faith is Ethel Waters who is a famous gospel singer.

In her book "His Eye is on the Sparrow" the beginnings of her life are shared. Her mother was a 12 year old sexual assault victim who gave birth to her at just 13 years old.

Ethel Waters, conceived in such tragedy, went on and had a powerful impact in the life of her family and in Christians worldwide.

Julie Makimaa is the woman pictured to the left. She was adopted following the sexual assault of her mother. She is the product of a rape and was reunited with her birth mother as an adult.

She is founder of Sparrow resources which is dedicated to defending women who have conceived after rape. She and a co-author have written a book called "Victims and Victors: Speaking out about their pregnancies, abortion and children resulting from sexual assault"

Her birth mother is someone I have seen speak on televised programming and she is very proud of her daughter. She is also very thankful. published the story of her mother's experience.

Lee Kinney was an 18-year-old secretary at a small sailboat manufacturer in the San Francisco area. One night, when she and two other secretaries were working late, a salesman named Jack invited the three over to his trailer for pizza.
Lee followed him home in her car, as she was new to the area and the other two women knew where Jack lived. Scarcely had she walked in the door of his rickety trailer and sat down when Jack wrestled her onto the couch. Amid her cries of "No!" and "Stop!" he beat her, tore her clothes from her, and raped her. He dropped to the floor when he finished, giving Lee time to escape. She drove frantically from the scene, wondering why her co-workers had not appeared. She felt ashamed, alone, and angry. Her attacker had been cruel enough to complain that she was a virgin. Was this what she had saved herself for?
Lee did not want anyone to know what had happened. She blamed herself for being naive enough to go to his trailer alone. She did not report the attack because she thought the police could not do anything (she was 18 and thought rape was only illegal if the victim was a minor). Because she wanted to forget the whole thing had happened, Lee decided to carry the secret of her humiliation to her grave.
PregnantOne month later, Lee came down with a case of the "flu." She had an upset stomach most of the time and did not feel like eating. After two weeks, she decided to go to a doctor to obtain antibiotics so she would not feel so tired. He suggested she could be pregnant. Two days later, her blood test came back positive.
Lee knew that because of her mother's personal circumstances, she would not be able to help her. She also knew she could not go through with an abortion. So, Lee's sister arranged for her to live with a blind, older relative outside Los Angeles. While she was there, she met some good friends who cared for her as though she were their own daughter. She had time to think about her future and realized it would be best for her child to be placed for adoption.
On February 11, 1964, Lee went into labor. After 16 hours, she was put under general anesthetic, and when she awakened her baby had been born. She asked whether the baby was a boy or girl, whether she would be able to hold her child. The nurse told her she had delivered a healthy baby girl, but it would be best if she did not see the child. That baby girl would grow up to be Julie Makimaa.
Julie’s StoryJulie Makimaa (now living in Springfield, Illinois.) learned in childhood that she was adopted but was not told she was conceived from a rape. "Mom explained the love she felt for me was no different than any other mother felt for her child, and that my birth mother, through an act of love, placed me for adoption since she wanted the best for me. I didn't grow up with resentment, only gratitude." But over the years, Julie did have questions and some mixed feelings. Did she look like her birth mother? Sound like her? Was her birth mother also musical? She did not want her adoptive parents to feel she was rejecting them, but she wanted to know her natural mother. She also worried about hurting her adoptive parents because of this strong desire to discover her birth mother. Julie knew that not all adopted children act upon their desire to learn the identity of their birth parents.
In 1984, Julie was living in northern Michigan, married, and with a daughter of her own, when she began to search in earnest for her biological parents. A faint phone number in the margin of her adoption records led her to a woman ("Mom" Croft) who had befriended her birth mother during pregnancy. Had Julie made the call only a few weeks later, the only link to her birth mother would have been lost because Mrs. Croft had planned to move and have her phone disconnected. But Julie did reach Mrs. Croft, and she called Lee and gave her Julie's telephone number. Julie was very excited and happy when Lee called from her California home the next morning.
They discussed Julie's childhood, their interests and looks, and planned a reunion for eight weeks later in Washington D.C. Julie asked about her birth father. Lee told her his name but said, "I don't think you want to search for him." The subject was dropped. Julie thought there would be time to pursue that later.
The Long-Suppressed SecretShortly before the planned meeting, Lee asked her husband, Harold, to call Julie's husband, Bob, and reveal to him the long-suppressed secret that Julie was conceived through a sexual assault. Amazingly, Bob Makimaa's heartfelt response was, "Just think ... that happened more than twenty years ago ... just to give me my Julie." He broke the news to Julie about the violence and pain which brought about her existence in the world.
Julie then became concerned that the reunion might bring back painful memories for Lee and was afraid it would be cancelled. But in a subsequent call to confirm reunion plans, Lee reassured her that, while the rape had been agonizing and painful, she had been through a healing process and did not consider Julie a part of that negative experience. Instead, Lee saw their relationship and reunion as the opportunity for good to come out of her past. Julie met Lee in Washington D.C. in February 1985. They celebrated Julie's 21st birthday together.
Questions"I had questions about myself," Julie admitted. "Am I bad because of my conception? Did I inherit evil genes? Would I have psychological problems?" Julie sorted through her feelings and eventually realized, "I am a unique person. I love and am loved because of who I am, not how I came about. I wasn't conceived in love, but it's not how you came about that's most important, it's what you do with your life once you're here."
How does Julie feel about her biological father? "Since I had always pictured him as a nice guy, I now had to deal with the fact that he hurt my mom. But I realized I couldn't be angry with him; that wouldn't benefit me or Mom."
Help and Hope For VictimsToday, Lee and Julie want their lives and experience to stand as an example of everyone's right to live, no matter how difficult the circumstances. And, there has been another enriching, positive effect resulting from what most people would believe to be an unbearable situation. Learning the truth of her personal circumstances has led Julie to share her story publicly and to form a support group for children born from sexual assault and their mothers, as well as for women who aborted children after being sexually assaulted. This organization, called Fortress International, educates the public on issues of assault pregnancy and offers support to women, children, and families affected by sexual assault pregnancies.
Because she was adopted, Julie said, she might have naturally gravitated to involvement in the pro-life movement. But now that she knows the full story behind her existence, she is more convinced than ever that her beliefs against abortion are right. While not diminishing the severe trauma caused by her birth mother's rape, Julie states, "I'm not ashamed at all, because if the sexual assault hadn't happened, I wouldn't be here."

The mother has her own website and can be reached at

The story of Rebecca Kiessling: Did she deserve the death penalty?

As some of you may know there has been a passionate debate on the recent abortion performed on an 11 year old rape victim and whether or not pro-life advocates should see this as an exception. Rebecca Kiessling has her own website at Rebeccakiessling. com From her website, which I would encourage everyone to visit:

According to her website Rebecca is a professional pro-life speaker and a speaker on the topic of adoption. She has written the heritage house ( ) pamphlet entitled "Conceived in rape: A story of hope" in which she shares that she was conceived from rape and nearly aborted on two separate occasions. She is a pro-life attorney. She was also in Glamour magazine when they did an article on persons who were conceived from rape. She is also a mother of two children.

Here is her testimony as shared on the website.

I was adopted nearly from birth. At 18, I learned that I was conceived out of a brutal rape at knife-point by a serial rapist. Like most people, I'd never considered that abortion applied to my life, but once I received this information, all of a sudden I realized that, not only does it apply to my life, but it has to do with my very existence. It was as if I could hear the echoes of all those people who, with the most sympathetic of tones, would say, “Well, except in cases of rape. . . ", or who would rather fervently exclaim in disgust: “Especially is cases of rape!!!” All these people are out there who don’t even know me, but are standing in judgment of my life, so quick to dismiss it just because of how I was conceived. I felt like I was now going to have to justify my own existence, that I would have to prove myself to the world that I shouldn’t have been aborted and that I was worthy of living. I also remember feeling like garbage because of people who would say that my life was like garbage -- that it was disposable.Please understand that whenever you identify yourself as being “pro-choice”, or whenever you make that exception for rape, that what that really translates into is you being able to stand before me, look me in the eye, and say to me, ‘I think your mother should have been able to abort you.’” That’s a pretty powerful statement. I would never say anything like that to someone. I would never to someone, “If I had my way, you’d be dead right now.” But that is the reality with which I live. I challenge anyone to describe for me how it's not! It’s not like people say, “Oh well, I’m pro-choice except for that little window of opportunity in 1968/69, so that you, Rebecca, could have been born.” No! This is the reality of that position, and I can tell you that it hurts and it’s mean. But I know that people don’t put a face to this issue! It’s just a concept – a quick cliché, and they sweep it under the rug and forget about it! I do hope that as a child of rape, I can help to put a face and a voice to this issue.I've often experienced those who would confront me and try to dismiss me with things like, “Oh well, you were lucky!” Be sure that this has nothing to do with luck. That fact that I’m alive today has to do with choices that were made, people who fought to ensure that abortion was illegal in Michigan at the time – even in cases of rape, people who argued to protect my life, and people who voted pro-life. I wasn’t lucky! And don’t tell me that our brothers and sisters who are being aborted every day are somehow unlucky?!!Although my birthmother was thrilled to meet me, she did tell me that she actually went to two back-alley abortionists and I was almost aborted. After the rape, the police had referred her to a counselor who basically told her that abortion was the thing to do. She said there were no crisis pregnancy centers back then, but my birthmother assured me that if there had been, she would have gone if at least for a little more guidance. The rape counselor is the one who set her up with the back-alley abortionists. For the first, she said it was the typical back-alley conditions that you hear about as to why she should have been able to “safely and legally” abort me -- blood and dirt all over the floor and all over the table. Those back-alley conditions and the fact that it was illegal caused her to back out, as it did with most women. Then she got hooked up with a more expensive abortionist. This time she was to meet someone at night by the Detroit Institute of Arts. Someone would approach her, say her name, blindfold her, put her in the backseat of a car, take her and then abort me . . . , then blindfold her again and drop her back off. And do you know what I think is so pathetic? It’s that I know there are an awful lot of people out there who would hear me describe those conditions and their response would just be a pitiful shake of the head in disgust: “It’s just so awful that your birthmother should have had to have gone through that in order to have been able to abort you!” Like that’s compassionate?!! Because, remember, they think that they are being compassionate!!! But that’s pretty cold-hearted from where I stand, don’t you think? Because that is my life that they are talking about and there is nothing compassionate about that position! My birthmother is okay – her life went on and in fact, she's doing great, but I would have been killed, my life would have been ended. I may not look the same as I did when I was four years old or four days old yet unborn in my mother’s womb, but that was still undeniably me and I would have been killed because my life would have been painfully ended through a brutal abortion!However, the night that my birthmother was to have me aborted, my aunt was to drive her and she was prepared to go through with it. That’s when the worst snow storm of the century in the Detroit metropolitan area began. She said it snowed for days and days and the roads were blocked – and that was it, she just couldn’t go through with it. My birthmother was then into her second trimester – far more dangerous, far more expensive to have me aborted. I’m so thankful my life was spared, but a lot of well-meaning Christians would say things to me like, “Well you see, God really meant for you to be here!” Or New-Agers say, "You were meant to be here." But I know that God intends for every unborn child to be given the same opportunity to be born, and I can’t sit contentedly saying, “Well, at least my life was spared.” Or, “I deserved it! Look what I’ve done with my life.” – and millions of others didn’t? I can’t do that. Can you??? Can you just sit there and say, “At least I was wanted . . . at least I’m alive . . . ”, or just, “Whatever”??? Is that really the kind of person who you want to be? Cold-hearted? A facade of compassion on the exterior, but stone cold and vacated from within? Do you claim to care about women but couldn't care less about me because I stand as a reminder of something you'd rather not face and that you'd hate for others to consider either? Do I not fit your agenda?In law school, I’d also have classmates say things to me like, “Oh well! If you’d been aborted, you wouldn’t be here today, and you wouldn’t know the difference anyway, so what does it matter?” Believe it or not, some of the top pro-abortion philosophers use that same kind of argument: “The fetus never knows what hits him, so there’s not such fetus to miss his life.” So I guess as long as you stab someone in the back while he’s sleeping, then it’s okay, because he doesn’t know what hits him?! I’d explain to my classmates how their same logic would justify “me killing you today, because you wouldn’t be here tomorrow, and you wouldn’t know the difference anyway, so what does it matter?!!" And they’d just stand their with their jaws dropped! It’s amazing what a little logic can do, when you really think this thing through – like we were supposed to be doing in law school – and consider what we’re really talking about: there are lives who are not here today because they were aborted. It’s like the old saying: “If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise?” Well, yeah! And if a baby is aborted, and no one else is around to know about it, does it matter? The answer is, “YES! Their lives matter. My life matters. Your life matters and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise!The world is a different place because it was illegal for my birthmother to abort me back then. Your life is different because she could not legally abort me because you are sitting here reading my words today! But you don’t have to have an impact on audiences for your life to matter. There is something we are all missing here today because of the generations now that have been aborted and it matters.One of the greatest things I’ve learned is that the rapist is NOT my creator, as some people would have me believe. My value and identity are not established as a “product of rape,” but a child of God. Psalm 68:5,6 declares: “A father to the fatherless . . . is God in his holy dwelling. God sets the lonely in families.” And Psalm 27:10 tells us “Though my father and mother forsake me, the Lord will receive me.” I know that there is no stigma in being adopted. We are told in the New Testament that it is in the spirit of adoption that we are called to be God’s children through Christ our Lord. So He must have thought pretty highly of adoption to use that as a picture of His love for us!Most importantly, I’ve learned, I’ll be able to teach my children, and I teach others that your value is not based on the circumstances of your conception, your parents, your siblings, your mate, your house, your clothes, your looks, your IQ, your grades, your scores, your money, your occupation, your successes or failures, or your abilities or disabilities – these are the lies that are perpetuated in our society. In fact, most motivational speakers tell their audiences that if they could just make something of themselves and meet this certain standard, then they too could “be somebody.” But the fact is that no one could ever meet all of these ridiculous standards, and many people will fall incredibly short and so, does that mean that they’re not “somebody” or that they’re “nobody?” The truth is that if you really want to know what your value is, all you have to do is look to the Cross – because that’s the price that was paid for you life! That’s the infinite value that God placed on your life! He thinks you are pretty valuable, and so do I. Won't you join me in affirming others' value as well, in word and in action?For those of you would say, "Well, I don't believe in God and I don't believe in the Bible, so I'm pro-choice," please read my essay, "The Right of the Unborn Child Not to be Unjustly Killed -- a philosophy of rights approach." I assure you, it will be worth your time.For Life,Rebecca

What an amazing and wonderful testimony!

The poster can be ordered from

Faith Daniels: The other side of rape

Faith Daniels is a former NBC host who has been on Dateline and on the Today show. She is a graduate of Bethany College and is an accomplished her. She was one of the youngest ever news anchors. She was interviewed in a 1993 people magazine article in which she shared that she was conceived during the violence of rape:

"I came from a terrible event but I am not a bad person. It really doesn't matter how you are conceived....the circumstances of my conception is not a cross to bear or something that I dwell on. Rape is an awful thing but if a child is a child is the result there should be no stigma"

Faith Daniels doesn't believe that abortion is okay in the event of rape. She doesn't think she was a mistake and she doesn't believe that she is burdened by the knowledge of her conception.

Jennifer Speltz:The other side of rape

There have been some heated exchanges of late on forums where the recent abortion performed on an 11 year old expectant mother and the Roman Catholic Church's faithful adherence to teachings have generated controversies.

First and foremost I want to say that I believe that virtually everyone on a position on this is filled with sorrow for an 11 year old girl that has endured a horrific life event. Something that can never be erased from time. I believe those who agree with me - and those who disagree - genuinely want to promote healing for this young girl and are grieved by what she has endured. There are no winners in this situation - there is only sadness for everyone involved.

I will be dedicating several postings over the next few days to the reality of rape and pregnancies that are a result.

Priests for life shares the wonderful testimony of Jenni Speltz who is now a campus pro-life organizer.

Testimony of Jennifer Speltz
I first began to recognize that I had a story to tell when I was attending a public Junior High school in Forest Lake, MN. Quite often the abortion topic would come up with friends and on occasion comments were thrown out by abortion-minded teachers. I would always cringe a little when they would say "I don’t like abortion, I think it is wrong . . . except in cases of rape and incest," or "we really have to keep abortion legal for cases of rape and incest."
My mom had slowly been revealing the circumstances of my conception to me over the years and by the time I was 13, I understood and had come to grips with the reality that my father was, essentially, a rapist. Though he was 18, as was my mother, at the time of my conception, and most likely had acted out of a dare by his friends, he had violated my mother against her will.
When my mom found out she was pregnant with me, the only advice she was given was to discard the "products of conception." She explains, better than anyone, how she was never offered support to keep me, though this is where her heart was leading her. Needless to say, I am eternally grateful that she heeded that still, small voice in her heart which told her that the life growing within had a purpose and did not merit death.
When the topic came up, throughout Junior High and High School, I would usually first try to appeal to reason saying: "Now, why don’t you like abortion? What is wrong with it?" When they would answer "Because, it’s a life" some would immediately recognize the double standard and relent. Most of the time, however, even when faced with the evident, they would still persist with emotional arguments: "You just can’t make a woman go through with a pregnancy like that." Though it is an unjust and heart wrenching scenario to consider, it must be dealt with, and so I would tell them our story. Only once in High School did a person who heard this story turn away cold-faced. Every other person who was faced with "a face" allowed their hearts to melt at the truth of matter - God has a plan for everyone!
As my 27th birthday approaches, I am ever discovering God’s magnificent plan, not only for my life, but for every life that he calls into existence. It is crucial that every citizen realize that a person’s dignity is not founded in whether or not one is wanted, as abortion peddlers and legislators would like them to believe. A person’s dignity is founded in the reality that persons are created in the image and likeness of God. The circumstances of my conception, yours, or anyone’s does not determine quality of life.
Young people across the nation and the world are coming to recognize the double-standards of abortion rhetoric and that all of the promises of the, so called, "sexual revolution" are coming up empty. Young people are renewing the pro-life movement with an unmatched determination to herald in a new "Culture of Life." By the grace of God my mom and I were spared of the life-long, direct agony that abortion reaps. On the other hand, when you consider Planned Parenthood’s grisly statistic that 40% of all women in the U.S. will have an abortion by the age of 40 (mothers, daughters, aunts, grandmothers, granddaughters, cousins, wives) every American citizen has been touched by the grief of abortion directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously. Therefore, every one of us has an obligation to stand up! I am overjoyed to be apart of the generation that WILL turn the cultural tide so that following generations will be spared of this unjust suffering.

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Pro-life literature

Atlanta, GA ( -- A federal appeals court unanimously struck down a Florida school board's policy that banned students from distributing pro-life literature. Students had problems with the Lee County School Board preventing them from distributing pro-life brochures at their junior high school.
While in seventh grade in Cypress Lake Middle School, Michelle Heinkel sought permission to distribute pro-life literature about a special memorial day for unborn children who had been killed in abortions.
However, Superintendent James Browder denied the request.
Browder said the school board's policy prohibited students from distributing literature that is political, religious or proselytizing.
The next year, Browder again denied Heinkel's request, along with the request of Nate Cordray, a student at Riverdale High School.
The federal district court upheld the policy, but the court of appeals found it unconstitutional.
In its decision, the appeals court ruled that the policy's ban on all political and religious literature was an unconstitutional content-based restriction. The court also ruled that the policy gave too much unrestricted discretion to school officials to deny speech.
It struck down the entire policy as a violation of the First Amendment.
Erik Stanley, chief counsel of Liberty Counsel, a pro-life law firm, represented the students.
"Public school students have a right to free speech, which includes verbal or written speech, before, after or in between classes," he said in a statement obtained. "A school's desire to squelch speech because of discomfort with the message is unconstitutional."
Mathew Staver, the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, argued the case before the district court and appeals court.
"Religious and political speech are twin sisters, without which we have no freedom," Staver explained. "Public schools may ban obscenity and libel, but religious and political speech does not stop at the schoolhouse door."
"Banning religious speech sends the wrong message that religion is taboo or second class, which proposition neither this court nor the Constitution is willing to tolerate," Staver concluded. "Educators need education about American history and the Constitution."

Rather amazing that children can be given condoms, birth control, and in some states school-faciliated abortions without parental consent but they can't read a pamphlet.

Only the SOWs shall speak

Suzanne has waded through a great deal of feedback that she received when she spoke out against government funding of the Status of Women and suggested that valuable contributions could be continued under a different government umbrella and that the funding for Status of Women as a separate body should be discontinued.

She has outlined things more clearly on her blog which I have linked to and she has cited the various sources of these comments.

For women who say that a womans place is in the home, they sure do alot of public bitching about the State replacing the Church as the source of social services.

Believing that a mother who has small children can make a valuable contribution in the family home providing direct care and nurturing to her children does not mean that that role is less important than paid employment in the community. Believing that a mother can make a valuable contribution by assuming that role on a full-time basis does not mean that women that they are devoid of opinion on matters of public policy or less qualified or entitled to articulate those views than women who do not provide direct full time care to their children.

This poster, to my eyes, is inferring that that role is less important and one worthy of disdain. I believe that stay at home mothers and people that truly value that role believe that the women who assume that role have the intellectual capacity to express their thoughts and the right to participate in society by engaging in discussions.

Those who reject a stay-at-home mother as being unworthy of forming or articulating a position on a subject are disproportionately "progressive" people.

Suzanne stated: Let me dispel some of the myths. Many of us are college-educated. Many of us have jobs outside the home-- sometimes full-time, sometimes part-time, sometimes with a stay-at-home husband, and sometimes not. Most of us prefer to stay home, because we believe that no one can be a full-time substitute for mom.

While Suzanne is correct that many of those articulating their views have had the opportunity to complete post-secondary education I do not see that as terribly relevant. I don't believe that women are only entitled to speak if they pass some elitist academic understanding. I also don't believe that "progressive" people generically wish to see women who have not completed University deemed unworthy of engaging in public discussion on current events. Women who agreed with them from any educational background would be a welcomed voice. I believe that they wish to see women who do not share their views voluntarily withdraw from discussions due to the hostility.

Suzanne quoted: " They want all women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. In fact, someone should tell all those REAL bloggers to stop typing and get baking"

Clearly this should resonate with people. It speaks very clearly to how women of certain mindsets see the role of a homemaker, the value of pregnancy, and the importance of women who hold different views.

Referring to an expectant mother as "barefoot and pregnant" is cleary a note of disdain and gives powerful insight into how pregnancy and motherhood are viewed. Obviously, they are viewed as a failure. When people who self-identify as feminists talk about being pro-choice and not pro-abortion please remember how negatively they characterize the choice of giving life and nurturing another little human being. When a pro-life person speaks in disdainful tones about the decision to abort they are criticized for this but when a pro-choice person openly mocks the choice to give life they must realize they lose all credibility as a supposedly unbiased individual on the subject. Clearly, the choice to give life is only worth mockery.

Suzanne said: I'm not pregnant and barefoot. Or uneducated. Or servile. Or unable to reason. Or a wallflower. Or a victim. Nor are most so-con women. But I suspect many lefties need to project that image in order to create a kind of anti-feminist bogeyman that's easy to shoot down. It's easier to paint one's opponent as a false stereotype than to actually address the issues. It makes debate so dispensable.

I am not pregnant or barefoot either but I recall my pregnancies as a time of great happiness and anticipation. I'm partly sorry that the feminist movement uses such as a beautiful time in the life of a family as an insult and partly happy that they are so candid about it. It allows expectant mothers, women staying at home, women who are working but respect mothers who stay at home, and the families of those women to really ask themselves if Status of Women speaks for women in Canada. When advocates of this organization present childbearing and women who enjoy family life in such disdainful terms you have to really ask yourself some questions about whether or not that is the only voice of Canadian women that should be funded and heard.

Anti-choice, anti-same sex marriage, hell -- anti-anything-since-June-Cleaver

And yet another example of the negative attitude towards women who stay at home with their children.

Clearly, feminists do not represent us and think we are not worthy of respect or should be taken seriously. They're the new chauvinist pigs-- or should I say SOWs.

Many of the advocates of Status of Women have responded to very valid questions about why a separate funding body for women's issues is necessary and whether or not that body reflects the values of most Canadian women with mocking the decision to stay home.

These are not women who value the decision to stay home.

These are not women who value child-bearing.

These are women who applaud the decision to have an abortion (the whole "I had an abortion" t-shirt and campaign) but who talk about the choice to continue with the pregnancy and stay home with a child as "barefoot and pregnant"

These are women who frame childbearing and parenting negatively ("barefoot and pregnant") when clearly most Canadian women who have children see that as the most defining and important things that they have done.

These are women who demean the management of a household making fun of cooking, baking, doing laundy, etc rather than acknowledging them as valuable contributions.

These are women who do not seem to equally respect the choice to stay home versus the choice to work full time.

These are women who deny the diversity of voices and opinion amongst women.

In sharp contrast, I loved being pregnant with my children. Those are memories I will carry with me for the rest of my life. I never felt demeaned. I am sorry some women have to mock that.

I love to be able to take care of them. I am thankful I am able to do this full-time. I am sorry that not all women value that.

I love to bake them cookies and cinnamon buns. I like to watch my kids lick the spoons after I make the batter. I remember doing that with my mom on saturday afternoons. I delight in this time of their life. I am sorry that not all women see value in that and frame it as demeaning.

I acknowledge not all women or men have the option of staying home and believe that we have a responsibility to support those families with good child care options. I believe that Stephen Harper's child care funding model of $100/month is flawed and regressive.

People who advocate for SOW by mocking traditional choices and insulting people's children do little to inspire people to re-consider. They simply re-affirm that SOW does not represent them. They do not even value them for anything other than the financial contribution that they make through taxation.

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

The fruit of the faith: An interesting debate.

A rather heated exchange on gay rights. A Christian blogger got a strong response.

Your "point" on homoseuality being immoral is nothing but ridiculous. Calling something immoral simply because you think it is devious and disgusting does not make something immoral. Your subjective opinion isn't moral principle. Hitler thought gays were undesirable because they couldn't reproduce and so threw them in concentration camps with the Jews. In fact, beside the Jews and when taking proportions into consideration, homosexuals were the most persecuted group of people during the Holocaust.

That, to me, is strong. I think people can speak to biblical ethics or share their perspective on immorality or morality without being compared to Hitler. Hopefully we should all be able to have enriching discussions about morality without being shut down. That goes both ways by the way if someone felt i was in moral error, I'd want to know.

The conservative position on homosexuality is supported by nothing but the Bible, which I will point out also condones slavery, killing the women and children of an enemy city by bashing the heads on jagged rocks, and forbdes growing two crops in the same field.When Christians pour their judgment on homosexual men and women, they do nothing less than make a mockery of their own savior, Jesus Christ. The grace they are willing to accept as followers of Christ is suddenly not good enough to extend to those they find offensive. It's a double standard, based not in biblical truth but in fear and the desire for control.

You make an exceptionally good point in challenging people about biblical ethics. Christians should believe that the blood of Christ should cover all things - limiting the atoning powers of Christ is, I believe, a grave error. To believe that God would forgive all human choices except gay sexuality really shows disdain for Christ's sacrifice.

I think your comments that are anti-bible though detract from an otherwise solid point.

Christians believe we all have sins that keep us from eternal life. None of us are good enough to earn our way into heaven, not even the Mother Teresa's of the world. Sin - the breaking of God's laws as laid down in the Bible - must be "atoned" for; it must be penalized, and the penalty is eternal death, what some call going to hell. But all is not lost, say Christians, because God himself paid the price by sending his son, in the person of Jesus Christ, to die for all of us. This is called "propitiation," where Christ died in our place to pay the penalty of sin. In essence, he became all of us for those moments that he hung on the cross; he became whatever kind of sinner we are, and then he took those sins to the grave. But, as most of us know from celebrating Easter each year, Christians believe Christ did not stay in the grave. Once the penalty of sin was erased, Christ was raised from the dead and now lives in heaven with God.
But we are not automatically "saved" from out sins. A person must decide to accept Christ's sacrifice on the cross in order to "join the family of God."6 Some people believe we must say a prayer, asking God to forgive us of our sins. Others say we must simply choose to believe in Christ. Still others say we must confess our belief in Christ's sacrifice by going through a public ritual that represents Christ's death and resurrection, a ritual known as baptism. Whichever way it's done, we must consciously decide to accept Christ's sacrifice for our own sins. This is called "grace." In a nutshell, grace is forgiving someone when they have wronged you. Since Christians believe all of us have wronged God with our sins, by believing that Christ paid our eternal penalty for our wrongdoing, we are accepting God's grace.
Sounds simple enough. But it's not. Once you become a Christian, you should start seeing a change in your behavior. You should start learning to love. You should also stop wanting to sin. But here's the catch. You can't. Even after you accept Christ's forgiveness, you will continue to be a sinner. Try as you might to stop altogether, you just can't. Even the Apostle Paul, one of the most prolific writers in the Bible, complained that he kept sinning. But we are told to keep trying and that we should see some progress. We are also told that some people who say the words to become a Christian may not actually believe what they were saying. These people are not really saved. And, say some Christians, you'll know who they are because they don't even try to stop sinning, even though those who are saved can never stop either.

You are right about the beauty and fullness of Gods face. You are also right that Christians, being human, are imperfect. You should also acknowledge that "once saved always saved" is not a uniform Christian position.

And this is where these kinds of Christians, known collectively as the Religious Right or Fundamentalists, make a mockery of their own Savior. They do this by picking and choosing which lifestyle sins are covered by God's grace and which ones are not. They do this by claiming that God's grace covers their own lifestyle sins but not those of the homosexual. They do this by accepting God's grace in their own lives and then refusing to extend that same grace to those they condemn for having the wrong lifestyle.

Excellent point!

And they can do this because they don't believe they have any lifestyle sins of their own. If you ask them about it, they'll say things like, "I used to sleep around but I was forgiven of that sin and now I don't do it anymore." However, ask them if a homosexual can be saved by God's grace, and they will say, "The gay man who does not turn from his homosexuality is choosing to live a lifestyle counter to God's laws and is not, therefore, saved by grace."

I don't understand what you are saying. If a straight person who engaged in premarital sex renounces their behaviour how is that inconsistent to say that a gay person has to renounce their behaviour as well?

What they conveniently forget is that 50% of them - those who count themselves among the Religious Right - are divorced, and more than 85% of those are remarried. What that means is, according to the Bible, that nearly 43% of the same people who condemn the gay man for his homosexuality choose to live in a lifestyle of adultery, a sin that ranks equal to homosexuality in God's eyes.

You are right that the Church community is not a positive example to the world on covenant marriage.

They should either condemn their remarried members or shut up about those among us who are gay.
But they don't. And we are left to wonder why.
Why do they pick on one "sinful" lifestyle but not their own? Why homosexuality and not adultery? They say it's because homosexuality is damaging our families and hurting our children. But which is really worse? Over 50% of American parents get divorced. Most of those remarry. Over 50% of our children have their families torn apart and then merged with the families of strangers (causing a lot of sexual abuse on children by step-parents). But less than 10% of the population is homosexual. Even if they had twice as many relationships as heterosexuals do, they could not possibly cause the kind of damage that heterosexual divorce and remarriage does.


A more logical explanation is that these Christians are afraid of the unknown and they want to control it. Heterosexuals have often been uncomfortable with homosexuals. The term "fag" is used to insult one's manliness; and "dyke" to insult one's femininity.

I am not in agreement with that.

Playing on people's fears is a great way to make money. Advertisers use it every day. If you don't want dandruff, use this. If you don't want to smell bad, use that. If you don't want to end up sick or dead, eat our stuff instead of their stuff. And if you don't want homosexuals taking over our schools, support our cause by sending in your donations. Fear sells. Whether intentional or not, the truth is the Religious Right rake in a great deal of money every time they claim homosexuals are threatening our nation's families, or worse, our children. The former vice-president of Focus on the Family, a leading Religious Right organization, stated in his book, "James Dobson's War on America" (Dobson is the founder and president) that when their donations went down, they could simply broadcast a scary special about the gay agenda (or the evil women's movement or the even more evil abortion rights groups - but never remarried people since that would drive away nearly half of their listeners) and their revenues would increase substantially.

I do not agree that it's revenue-generating. I think it's a very sincere fear even if I don't agree with it.

This is how they "love the sinner," by abusing them in order to make money? The term "mockery" doesn't begin to describe the trashing these so-called Christians are doing to God's name. The Religious Right should get down on their knees and beg the forgiveness of every homosexual man or woman they have publicly condemned on their way to the bank. They should beg God's forgiveness for being just like the wicked servant in Christ's story, forgiven of their own sinful lifestyles but unwilling to forgive the lifestyles of their fellow human beings. And then they should stop their self-righteous rhetoric and remember that for a moment in their savior's life, as he hung on a cross for everyone's sin, that Christ was gay.

I do not agree that it's based on generating revenue. I think that's a rather flawed perception. I do agree that people of faith need to constantly look within themselves about how they behave and treat people and also look at ourselves as a group of individuals and question the image that we are reflecting to the world.

I am not going to agree that Christ was gay but when God died on the cross he died for the full range of sins for all of mankind.

Boycott in memory of Sean Paddock

Hat tip to Doc Sunrise for his blog profiling this issue.

This boycott was inspired in part by Sean Paddock's death.

Paddock -- a Johnston County mother accused of murdering Sean, her 4-year-old adopted son, and beating two other adopted children -- surfed the Internet, said her attorney, Michael Reece. She found literature by an evangelical minister and his wife who recommended using plumbing supply lines to spank misbehaving children.

Sean's 9-year-old brother was beaten so badly he limped, a prosecutor said. Bruises marred Sean's backside, too, doctors found.
Sean died after being wrapped so tightly in blankets he suffocated. That, too, was a form of punishment, Johnston County Sheriff Steve Bizzell said.
The Pearls' advice from their Web site: A swift whack with the plastic tubing would sting but not bruise. Give 10 licks at a time, more if the child resists. Be careful about using it in front of others -- even at church; nosy neighbors might call social workers. Save hands for nurturing, not disciplining. Heed the warning, taken from Proverbs in the Old Testament, that sparing the rod will spoil the child.

A boycott of Homeschoolerblogger is being called for because it is supported by the OldSchool House magazine which carries advertisements and publishes articles of support by Michael and Debbie Pearl who are proponents of highly questionable methods of discipline.

Why boycott these sites? HomeschoolBlogger is supported by The Old SchoolHouse Magazine. The Old Schoolhouse magazine in turn provides ad space for and publishes articles that support or are contributed by Michael and Debbie Pearl, who are proponents of abusive discipline practices. The editor of TOS magazine, Gena Suarez, refuses to apologize for her statements to the press in regards to the child's death - instead, she chose to support the proponents of child abuse, The Pearls, whom the mother of the dead child turned to for "discipline" advice. .....HSB is now deleting blogs of those clients who support components of the boycott.The Pearls market heavily to homeschoolers, hitting all major homeschooling conventions and curriculum sales, and advertising heavily in homeschooling publications.LEAVE HOMESCHOOLBLOGGER - accepting their free service is the same as accepting child abuse. has an excerpt from Mr. Pearl's site on his blog:

Dear Pearls,I am a pastorÂ?s wife and have a question for you. Is it right to spank a 7-month-old for crying when put down for bed?CharityIf the child has been mistrained, or if you have failed to provide a good prelude to sleep, and the child rises up to fight and resist, you should evaluate your whole procedure so as to improve your pre-sleep ritual for tomorrow night. But for the moment, you must constrain the child to obey authority and remain lying down. You may have to prove the power of your word by enforcing it with one or two stinging licks (applied with a small flexible switch) to the childÂ?s leg that says to the child, Â?There is no reward for getting up; Mama means business; she is not going to give over to my demands; the path to greatest pleasure is to go to sleep; there is no alternative; my parents always get their way; what can I say? Good night.Â?

Can you believe this? A Pastor telling someone to spank a seven month old ? A Pastor saying a child has been "mistrained"? I can't get that image of a beautiful seven month old child getting a "licking" with a "small flexible switch" for crying.

There are a lot of spiritual questions in this world that I have questions about about, but one that I am sure of is that God does not want you to beat or murder your own child. There is no doubt.

God bless that little boy Sean Paddock and God bless any child that is getting a switch used on them when they are still in the crib. The cruelty of this is unspeakable.

Carlotta wrote on her blog the plight of children raised in homes that used physical discipline.

She was explaining why she was boycotting linking to a home-schooling organization that was raising funds for Pastor Pearl and his wife who are facing consequences for their use of corporal punishment.


"This is a sampling of Pearl's advice from "To Train Up a Child" and his newsletter, "No Greater Joy":PROBLEM Baby bites during breast-feeding SOLUTION Pull baby's hair

Who would PULL their BABY"S hair during nursing?

PROBLEM Rebellious child who runs from disciplineSOLUTION "If you have to sit on him to spank him, then do not hesitate. And hold him there until he has surrendered. Prove that you are bigger, tougher, more patiently enduring, and are unmoved by his wailing. Hold the resisting child in a helpless position for several minutes, or until he is totally surrendered. Accept no conditions for surrender -- no compromise. You are to rule over him as a benevolent sovereign. Your word is final."

Who on God's green earth sits on their child? What kind of parenting skill is that - to prove you are "bigger" and "tougher" ?

I wouldn't have thought a person outweighing someone by 50lbs choosing to sit on a helpless child would be referred to as "patiently enduring" - it's called insanity.

PROBLEM Child whines to mother after father disciplines himSOLUTION Mother must go over to child and "give him one or two licks on his exposed ankles or legs while commanding, 'Obey your father

What person wouldn't comfort their child if he was emotionally needy or HURT after an assault?

PROBLEM Child liesSOLUTION Switch him 10 times at noon each day. Make him pick the tree branch. PROBLEM What to use for a rodSOLUTION For babies under age 1, a footlong willow branch shaved of its knots. For older kids, plastic plumbing pipe, a 3-foot shrub cutting or a belt to help turn a child "back from the road to hell."

Who would use a willow branch on a baby under one? WHO? What person has so lost their mind?

I must say I have not been a part of this debate and I don't know the full history. I just happened upon her blog today when I was looking at a comment she made on mine. What a horrific thing for Christian people to be supporting willow branches on babies and assaults on little children. That is our shame.

Monday, August 28, 2006

the hard truth about abortion

This is a very difficult video to watch. I would suggest that only adults watch it and only adults who are prepared to see graphic images. It should also be noted that some of the pictures are of later term abortions which represnt a minority of abortion procedures in the USA.
Michael W. Smith - This Is Your Time

A discussion on a web forum made me remember this beautiful tribute to Cassie Bernell who died for her faith at Columbine High.

Saying no to Patriarch - well, sometimes!


I expect women from diverse political backgrounds to disagree and for the debate on these topics to be rich and lively.

I did not expect that everyone will walk away agreeing but I think we can at least understand different views.

I, for example, obtained a more detailed understanding of the differences between NAC and Status of Women with previously only having a generalized understanding. I would also have to agree that the Status of Women has done some credible work - I just believe that it can be done on a different umbrella.

I also agree with the concerns that were raised about REAL women. Not all of them but some of them. I am not a supporter of REAL women - I am a supporter of the Status of Women not being considered an advocate or a spokesperson for all women. They are NOT a spokesperson for me.

What I hadn't expected is that male participants in the discussion would participate on blogs and even feminist forums in efforts to silence or mock women with a point of view that didn't embrace funding for Status of Women.

And I certainly didn't expect feminists to support that. To laugh at it. To applaud it. To celebrate it.

I had, naively, assumed that feminists believed that all women deserved respected. That all women deserved to be treated like valued people who were contributing to the world. That all women deserved not to be told by a man to be quiet and to stop speaking.

While I've never been the most keen person on feminism I had retained at least some hope that they would not think that other women deserved abuse.

I hadn't thought that men would be applauded when they attacked other women.

But, I was wrong.

Women who make traditional choices are not valued.

Women who make traditional choices should be mocked.

Their role with their children deserves to be mocked.

Their role with their home and family deserves to be mocked.

Women who have a different point of view need to be quiet.

And, clearly, they need a man to tell them that.

And that's alright with the feminists.

What a message to the world that SOME women can be berated. That SOME women can be mistreated. That SOME women should be silent.

Has nobody told the feminists about abortion?

Refuge is a organization that helps women who are abused and their children. They are a feminist organization that does some pretty wonderful stuff when they are helping women leave such a crisis.

Their advertisement to the left speaks eloquently of the tiny life within as a baby - they don't even say unborn baby - they recognize it's a baby pure and simple!

I've always found it a great feminist inconsistency when they deny the reality of human life in the womb when it's abortion but they acknowledge it in other settings. Clearly, they are aware that what a mother is carrying within her is a baby when they are advertising those very words!!!

And, believe it or not, their website says "domestic violence is the biggest unborn baby killer"




I applaud and admire the refreshing honesty about the reality of life in the womb and being able to label the loss of life as a killing but I am puzzled by the moral inconsistency.

Hiding Predators from Justice

Topeka, KS ( -- A probe Attorney General Phill Kline conducted earlier this year into whether young girls had been raped and had abortions to cover up the actions is playing a key role in his campaign for re-election. Kline is coming under attack from Democrat Paul Morrison, who says the investigation was a violation of privacy.
Kline said his investigation was not a part of a political agenda but a legitimate effort to protect girls in Kansas.
“When I have a 10-year-old who gets pregnant and gets a late-term abortion and was impregnated at the age of 9, and no one calls the police, I don't consider it a narrow agenda to try and bring her rapist to justice,” he told the Dodge City Daily Globe.
Kline sought the records of girls in 90 abortion cases from two abortion businesses, who sued to stop the investigation from continuing.
A Shawnee County District judge subpoenaed the records and backed Kline's probe, but the abortion centers appealed the decision, refusing to cooperate. The Kansas Supreme Court eventually ruled that Kline could get access to the records as long as the privacy of the girls was protected.
Morrison, the Johnson County District Attorney, is attempting to make the effort to protect Kansas girls an issue in the race. He told the Globe newspaper he disagreed with the probe.
“It is disingenuous for Mr. Kline to try to justify his serious violation of privacy by claiming to investigate child rape, because three-quarters of the records belong to adult women,” he claimed.
That's because part of the investigation involved whether the abortion centers were doing illegal late-term abortions.
The state pro-life group Kansans for Life worries that Morrison will benefit from another last-minute infusion of hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign cash from infamous late-term abortion practitioner George Tiller.
Tiller, who escaped prosecution in the abortion death of mentally disabled 19 year-old Cristin Gilbert, owns one of the two abortion centers in Kline's probe.
Tiller's ProKanDo PAC funneled $150,000 to Kline's opponent in 2002. The web site for his abortion business asks women who have had abortions to donate to the political group

It is rather stunning to me that people that profess to be acting in the best interests of children are not taking measures required by law to report to the police when a nine year old is impregnated.

Amazing to me that being "pro-choice" now seems to involve supporting predators escape justice.

Holly Patterson: A life lost

It must be said that this young woman was 18 if even for a few days. She was a legal adult that was not - and should not - be required to speak to her parents.

It also needs to be noted that we are not discussing the same medication as plan b. Some get that confused.

It also should be noted that this is an extraordinary example of what can go wrong. The vast majority of women who take this medication will not die.

With all of that acknowledged and said here is the letter written by her parents following her death.

The Alameda County Coroner's report has validated what we already believed to be true. Holly has died from an RU-486 chemical induced abortion. There are no quick fixes for a pregnancy or magical pills that will make it go away. Our family, friends and community are all deeply saddened and forever marred by Holly's tragic and preventable death.
Holly lived as an adult by law for only 19 days, yet she became pregnant when she was just 17 years old. We now know that she learned about her pregnancy in the second week of August and was so distraught over her unplanned pregnancy that she sought help for depression from her family doctor on September 10, 2003 - the very day that she began the drug induced abortion process.
Holly was a strong, healthy, intelligent and ambitious teenager who fell victim of a process that wholly failed her, beginning with the 24-year-old man who had unprotected sex with her, impregnated her, and then proceeded to facilitate the secrecy that surrounded her pregnancy and abortion. Under this conspiracy of silence, Holly suffered and depended on the safety of the FDA approved pill administered by Planned Parenthood and emergency room treatment by Valley Care Medical Center where she received pain killers for severe cramping and was sent home. On Saturday and Sunday, Holly cried and complained of severe cramping and constipation, and even allowed us to comfort her but could not tell us what she was really going through. On September 17, 2003, she succumbed to septic shock and died while many members of our family waited anxiously, yet expectantly in the Critical Care Unit for her to recover until we were forced behind the curtain when it was clear that she was dying.
And in those last moments of her life feeling utter disbelief and desperation we formed a circle just beyond the curtain and prayed aloud, cried and screamed, "We love you, Holly" hoping beyond hope that those words would ring out and save her life. And the other members of our family who drove and flew from all over the country to be by her side did not make it in time to say, "I love you" just one last time. Holly was not alone, unloved, unprotected or unsupported; she had a large family who willingly supported her throughout her short life and tragic death.
In the weeks since we buried Holly's body we are now able to recall and share the memories of our daughter's brilliant blue eyes, engaging smile, laughter, unwavering determination and sheer gentle beauty that invoked our natural instinct to protect and love her, but we will never be able to forget those last moments of her life when she was too weak to talk and could barely squeeze our hands in acknowledgement of our words of encouragement. "We love you, Holly", "Just hang in there, the whole family is coming," "You fight this Holly, you can do it."
Because Holly has died this way, we have educated ourselves about the grave dangers of this drug, become conscious of the current lack of parental notification/consent laws in California and now recognize the critical need for accurate, impartial sources of information and resources for parents, teenagers and young women who want to learn about the real dangers and risks of unplanned pregnancy and abortion and the dire need for a national movement to encourage prevention and open dialogue in the home about unplanned pregnancy and abortion.
We will actively support "Holly's Law" in Congress by Reps. DeMint, Bartlett and Senator Brownback to suspend and review the abortion drug RU-486, the Tell-A-Parent (TAP) bill, which requires parental notification laws in California and a campaign to encourage prevention and open dialogue about unplanned pregnancy and abortion in the home.
As parents, we cannot allow our beautiful Holly's horrible death to be in vain. RU-486 has caused serious injury and has been implicated in the deaths of other young women. Now it has killed our daughter. We have learned that the initial trials were rushed and the drug was lumped in and approved with drugs designed for life threatening illnesses such as cancer and AIDS. Pregnancy is a natural process that a woman's body is designed to support and has never been classified as a life threatening illness. We need help to develop a website and provide a place for teenagers and women to report their stories and testimonials of their experience on the serious and adverse affects using RU-486.
The FDA has failed to carry out its mission of ensuring RU-486 is a safe and effective abortion drug regimen. According to the FDA, it is "responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation's food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation." Holly has already paid the ultimate price.
The RU-486 abortion drug should not be either a Pro Life or Pro Choice issue. The most primary concern here must be the health and welfare of our children and young women. Hopefully, all parents can learn from Holly's horrible death and our loss. According to Danco Laboratories, the abortion drug's distributor, the RU-486 regimen fails to work 7-8 percent of the time. Over a year ago the FDA received 400 reports of adverse reactions to the drug including several deaths. Holly is yet another victim who was subject to an unacceptable risk to a drug that has a significant failure rate. And we demand that FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan and Health and Human Services Secretary, Tommy Thompson take RU-486 off the market immediately pending an extensive investigation by the Comptroller General of the United States before more parents suffer and women die.
We respectfully request the name of the bill that is to be presented to the House of Representatives, an Act cited as the "[RU-486 Approval and Review Act of 2003]" to be known as "Holly's Law." We actively support a bill that halts the use of the drug that took Holly's young life.
We demand an investigation by the FDA and the California State Health Department as to why abortion clinics like Planned Parenthood are not following FDA approved regulations to administer the drug. We question the purity of the drugs they administer, especially when they are made in foreign countries, such as China.
In addition to the dangers of this drug and its administration, we believe that health care providers such as Valley Medical Care Center don't appear to be fully prepared to evaluate and treat patients with RU-486 complications in emergency situations. Holly was in the hospital twice and died within 20 minutes before her follow up appointment with Planned Parenthood.
FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan and Health and Human Services Secretary, Tommy Thompson should now have enough evidence to pull this drug from the market. How many more teenagers and young women will have to pay the price with their health or with their life, before the FDA decides to act?
Currently in California, teenage girls under the age of 18 can't get their ears pierced or go on a school trip, but they can have a medical or surgical abortion without parental knowledge or consent. This prevents parents from being able to talk to their children about a pregnancy that would allow them to keep a baby or to be able to follow the abortion process.
The first line of defense for a child is a parent. Kids wouldn't be walking into clinics under a veil of secrecy if parents were notified first hand where they could talk to their children about abortion risks. We have now learned that Holly first sought a pregnancy test in the months leading up to her pregnancy while she was still 17 years old. We know now that a parental notification law would have brought Holly's activity to our attention and her needless death could have been prevented if we had been aware and intervened.
We actively support the Tell-A-Parent (TAP) ballot initiative sponsored by Life on The Ballot With enough petitions, this initiative will be on the 2004 ballot and requires parental notification 48 hours prior to an abortion in California. As parents, we are concerned about the health and welfare of all daughters; we are "Pro Holly" and look to our California Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein to support this initiative for the safety and protection of all young women in California.
Finally, we have suffered greatly with the realization that it's not enough to avoid the issue or talk to our children about why we don't want them to be involved in an unplanned pregnancy or abortion, but as parents, we must also talk about the tragic realities of unwanted pregnancy and abortion and reassure both, our daughters and sons that while we don't want this to happen, we will support them. We must focus on prevention and they must be told that they are not alone in this or any other unfortunate circumstance, regardless of the outcome.
We feel very strongly that this country needs a national campaign to promote open and frank discussions in the home about unplanned pregnancy and the options that are available to our daughters who find themselves in this unfortunate predicament. We are eager to support such a campaign designed to bring about awareness, encourage parental involvement, and provide accurate information to minors, women, and parents about abstinence, birth control, unplanned pregnancy, abortion, parenting, and adoption options.
While parents would prefer that their daughters abstain from sex and many do, we must deal with the reality that many don't. In addition to unplanned pregnancy, girls can contract HIV and other STIs. As parents we need to prevent unplanned pregnancy instead of relying upon abortion clinics and agencies to educate our children and provide them with inaccurate information. No parent wants to see his or her teenage or college age daughter in the unfortunate situation that Holly was faced with.
We have lost our daughter, Holly, but we can still help to prevent this terrible tragedy from happening in other families. Holly's drive and determination to accomplish her goals gives us strength to pursue these critical issues in her name. Holly's memory and light will live on in our hearts, family, friends and our work. We will actively support the bill to suspend and review "Holly's Law" in Congress by Reps. DeMint and Bartlett and Senator Brownback to suspend and review the abortion drug RU-486, the Tell-A- Parent (TAP) bill, which requires parental notification laws in California and a campaign to encourage prevention and open dialogue about unplanned pregnancy and abortion in the home. Please contact us with any questions or requests for support of these very important issues.
Mr. and Mrs. Monty and Helen Patterson

While Holly was young she was the age of a legal adult and no law should have made it necessary to speak to her parents. She is, however, young enough to highlight for people the terrible consequences when parents and loved ones are excluded from being part of the support for a young girl. Every parent should strive to have a strong relationship with their child that promotes these discussions happening naturally and it should not be undermined by Planned Parenthood type advocates that make such strident efforts to exclude parents through law.

Holly's obituary as it appeared in the Contra Costra times talked her love of student government, writing talents, a passion for music, an interest in cooking and playing "Powder Puff football" - her funeral was held at the fairgrounds where she worked as a teen. It must have been a place she loved.

Holly had the medication administered by Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is the same organization in the United States of America that is highly critical of the current restrictions in the USA on minors not being able to get the item over the counter.

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Flirting with a Westboro Church man

This is a laugh!

Pharmacists want choice

The White House says it expects the FDA to enforce the restrictions on over-the-counter sales of the morning-after pill. It's being made available without a prescription to women 18 and older. But the head of the National Partnership for Women and Families says since the drug is safe at any age, the restriction is "arbitrary and baseless.'' Now, the debate over the drug turns to pharmacists.Do they have a right to refuse to dispense the drug based on moral grounds? We put that question to Michiana-area pharmacists.One local pharmacist who says he doesn't want to give out the drug because he says it goes against his moral beliefs. We talked to another small pharmacy in town and they're not going to sell it -- period."I feel that pharmacists should be able to refuse based on their conscience," said Larry Taylor. Taylor works at a local Michiana pharmacy, but didn't want to say which one. For Taylor selling the drug goes against his morals."When you're participating in something like that that causes an abortion then you're harming the patient."But, a Planned Parenthood spokesperson told us over the phone that women shouldn't be turned down when they go to get the drug. The spokesperson says the earlier a woman takes it, the safer she is from risks or side effects.Some people with pro-choice beliefs think a woman should be able to buy the drug at any pharmacy.Planned Parenthood says it may be easier for people to get the pill at bigger chain pharmacies rather than local or independent ones. Taylor says regardless of where a person buys the drug, there may be more at stake than just morals."If you've got a young lady that's coming in and taking this on a regular basis or maybe just once or twice their immune system's lowered." One pharmacist says there's a loophole in the new regulation that some parents may want to know about. The rule says women under 18 still need a prescription to buy it. But, he says a person over 18 like another woman or even a man could buy them and give them to someone underage.The dean of Rutgers Pharmacy School said he doesn't see much impact. If your pharmacist wouldn't give you the pill with a prescription, he or she probably won't do it now that it's over the counter.

The idea of restricting plan b to persons 18 and over does have a medical aspect to it. Persons under 18 may not know their family medical history well enough to make an informed choice and would be at higher risk of facing some complications. That, honestly, is not a significant reason behind that decision. Quite simply the most compelling reason is that families do not want their daughter making that decision independently believing it is rich in moral complexity. They want to guide and/or support their daughter through that decision. This is also a decision wrought with political overtones because of the emotions involved and the political lobbying involved in the abortion debate.

I am surprised that pro-choice activists believe that they have the right to FORCE a business to carry any specific product. I believe that many smaller businesses will choose not to provide the product rather than be seen as entering into the abortion debate. The handful of plan b pills that they will sell in the store will not be worth the loss in their reputation and the dollars at the end of the month.

I also believe that pro-life activists will carefully monitor pharmacies for compliance i.e. having girls under the age of 18 go in and try to get the pills.

Many pharmacists are just going to choose not to carry the product.

Do they have that right? I emphatically believe individual businesses do have that right. Individual pharmacists is much greyer to me. Personally if I were a pharmacist I would believe that I had to find another career or I had to operate my own pharmacy and make the rules for my own business. I do not believe that I would have the right to be behind the counter and unwilling to fill ANY prescription on my employer's timetable. I believe that it's reasonable to ask a colleague to do it but if that option is not available I think you have to find a different vocation.

An abortion perspective from Marie Claire Magazine

The August 2006 UK verson of Marie CLaire magazine has an article entitled "I had an abortion". They are an unapologetically pro-choice magazine that has involved themselves in pro-choice political activism so one wouldn't expect a diversity of views represented. It would be unapologetically pro-life.

"I had an abortion" is an article that tells the story of 12 women who have had an abortion.

Even with that said the comments of some of the mothers who chose abortion were insightful.

Michelle Ashworth: “As the months went on after the abortion, I couldn’t stop myself from working out how many months pregnant I would have been and even thinking about baby names. I felt horribly empty inside....the termination is still on my mind...I can't even begin to describe how much I regret my decision. It was the worst mistake I ever made.

Elaine Jowsey: “My decision to take that future from that child will be a personal life sentence for me.”

Nadine Can: “I still think about it and I always feel pretty miserable around the anniversary of the termination.”

Linda Eaglesfield: “I turned to alcohol to blot out the sense of bereavement and guilt and, for the next two years, I drank heavily.”

Sarah Fry: “I blame my abortion for my two miscarriages... My termination was a quick fix – I only wish I’d considered how I would feel when it came to not being able to have the babies I do want.”

Carly Bridges: "Nothing can prepare you for how gruesome a medical abortion is and the volume of blood you lose. I was overwhelmed with guilt afterwards"

Thank you to the lady in the pew for blogging this important article.

A Pro-Choice Man's Guide to Unwanted Pregnancy portrays men as victims indicating that every minute in the USA a baby is conceived under a set of circumstances where they see men as being "forced" into parenthood. They focus on the potential impact of a child coming at an unplanned time. They focus on the disruptions rather than the strength and the beauty.

They talk about men being "involuntary parents" having to "fake parental affection" and refer to the child as "unwanted" in their guide

They talk about the negative impact that this will have on their marriage prospects (Who would marry a man who dumped his kids?)

They talk about the adverse impact on a man's health and even talk about suicide.This is their advice to men.

If you're really, really sure that you don't want to be a parent now, then start trying to persuade her to put the child up for adoption, or if you wish, have an abortion. You'll have at least three chances. This may work. About 1% of children are put up for adoption and about a third of pregnancies end in abortion.
Chance #1: Tell her that your relationship will go smoother if she doesn't keep the child.
Chance #2: Tell her that the child will appreciate it if it's adopted. Then it can have a loving father and less risk of the problems that are typically associated with absent fathers, such as dropping out of school, drug abuse, teen age pregnancy, crime and prison.
Chance #3: Tell her that you'd appreciate it if she doesn't keep the child because you're not ready to be a father and don't want the responsibility and stress to hurt your health. She should feel guilty. You don't want her bobsledding you to an early plot in the nice guy graveyard.
She may laugh in your face. She may know that lower state courts will tell you to shut up and shovel the gravel, even if she admits to lying about contraception (Stephen K. v. Roni L., 105 Cal. App. 3d 640, 164 Cal. Rptr. 2d 618 (1980)) or
rapes you.

Our current paternity laws treat your family planning as a bizarre animal husbandry experiment that you'd expect to find in a third world banana republic. Hundreds of thousands of American men have their paternity "established" in court each year, while women's family planning is protected by legalized abortion and abandonment. The protections given to men and women are
light years apart!

Persuading the CourtsThe next step is the traditional defense against paternity: a DNA test taken soon after the child is born. There's roughly a 10% chance that a DNA test will eliminate you, in which case you're home free. However, there's a 90% chance that it won't and you don't want to be obligated by DNA. Abortion and abandonment laws protect women from being obligated by DNA. You should be protected too.
If you know early on that you're likely to be forced into parenthood, you might consider trying to improve the law. However, it's imperative that you refine an overall strategy with a dream team of legal, media and reproductive rights experts before setting foot in a courtroom or in front of the media! This could be done through weekly conference calls. I've seen too many men lose because they underestimated the adverse case law that lower courts use. Your principled goal will be to overturn the current paternity laws in Federal Court with a
creative solution. This is my favorite solution because, unlike the band-aids mentioned above, it addresses the real problem: bad laws. The hardest dream team member to find will probably be an attorney who's familiar with men's reproductive rights, appellate courts and Federal Court. Check our list first. Failing that, it should be possible to find one with enough referrals. The media and reproductive rights expert should probably be Mel Feit, the executive director of the National Center for Men at (516) 938-3075 (voice) or (516) 942-2020 (message). I'd be glad to be on the team too. Be sure to aim for Federal Court. The lower courts will waste your money and are the "Bermuda Triangle" of men's reproductive rights. See this link for a litigation flowchart.
If you can't improve the law, you can still try to persuade her to marry a man who will adopt the child.

I can't imagine anyone wanting to be in a relationship with someone who thinks that way about women and children. I don't know whether or not they mask these views to the world or if the mothers actually find this acceptable thinking in a sexual partner.

I realize that the pro-choice support for this position is not uniform and there is diversity among pro-choice activists in how they see the rights of fathers before birth that anyone - even a single person- could unite with such thinking is beyond comprehension.

In Love with a Deadbeat: The ultimate outcome of the pro-choice point of view

The National Center for Men now is running a "Choice for Men" project.

Choice for Men is a project that is about believing that men have been trapped and tricked into parenthood by women and they wish to have the same option to relinquish their parental responsibilities as women due under Roe vs Wade in the United States of America.

It is their position that due to mechanical or human failure rate with birth control or when women are untruthful to them that pregnancies that are unplanned are a natural part of a sexually active life and that men should have the option to opt out of parenting.

The outcome of this will be expectant mothers feeling undersupported and an increase in the number of women who feel coerced to abort because of that reality. An increase in the number of children born without the benefit of financial and emotional support from both parents and a diminshed quality of life for children.

The feminist movement has been splintered in their reaction to it. Some believe that it is a natural outcome of allowing both parents a full range of choices and concur that there are times when a man is "trapped" into a set of circumstances and should be able to walk away. Others feel that a born child is entitled to the support of both parents with no ability to opt out after birth. They also point to the male birth control options that are available in order for a man to diminish the likelihood of being "lied to"

The website offers the story from the perspective of a woman, a former pro-choice activist, who feel in love with a man whose child was conceived during an allegedly abusive relationship and untruths about birth control being utilized

She now refers to the woman who conceived a child with her partner as "a uterus opportunist", talks about speaking with her stepchild's mother telling her to tell the child that "she doesn't have a father" and she was "conceived out of spite and revenge" !! Pro-choicers have the best bedtime stores for children!! She talks about her step-daughter's mother and her female family members as women who are "in the baby business" making a mocking reference to them having children with men who were ill-prepared to be parents.

It is rather interesting to see the outcome of Roe vs Wade now being turned into a right for men that is being touted as "the next Roe vs Wade" by the community of fathers who are demanding choice for themselves. They see an inherent unfairness in the USA abortion laws and want the same opportunity to exclude themselves as men. They have the support of some, but not all, feminists.

The outcome of this, if successful, will be an elevated number of children living in poverty.
That doesn't bother the feminists - it's about choice.

The outcome of this, if successful, will be an elevated number of abortions.
That doesn't bother the feminists.

The outcome of this, if successful, will be an elevated number of children not having the benefit of two emotionally involved parents.

That doesn't bother the feminists.

This is the long-anticipated long-predicted outcome of their arguments and like past decisions the persons most likely to be hurt are children.

Barefoot, pregnant, and quiet - A feminist dream.

It appears that the progressive web discussions include pleas for women who are not like-minded to be silent.

A left wing progressive site offered some links to various sites that were commenting on the whole controversy around the Status of Women. In one of the link it sited me as a conservative blogger participating in the campaign. While I am not a conservative I can understand that assumption as that does represent the majority of women participating. Infact, I don't have membership in REAL women nor would I purchase one! I simply do not want my dollars used to promote an organization that does not speak for me and professes to do so. I noticed, however, that they referred to me as "Hailey-Mary" which would be anti-Catholic remark. It is also strange that when an organization is striving to promote the position that they represent the diversity of women that their supporters would insult all Catholic women - a religion that represents the largest faith group for Canadian women.

Suzanne's Big Blue Wave also talks about the feminist response to women who are not like-minded expressing themselves

I will not link to the blog because I don't want to read the profanity and hostility directly. This, however, stands out as a particularly insightful quote

REAL women my ass. If they really believed in their shit they should shut the fuck up, stay at home barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

A real treasure find. A clear indication that the type of person who advocates and supports the Status of Women is not interested in listening to the diversity of voices among women, respecting more traditional choices like staying home, honouring a range of reproductive decisions including childbearing, and so forth. They are interested in women who live traditional lives sitting nicely and quietly while others speak for them. They are interested in mocking and de-valuing women when they make different choices.

I would invite everyone who was sitting on the fence and contemplating where they stood on this issue realize that this bold statement is very much an "in your face truth" said in a moment of passion. It is, however, the truth about how women who are homemakers, mothers, and who have chosen a more traditional life are valued by so many advocates in that movement.

This is how they feel.

This is what they think about you.

This is what they think of your children.

Don't let them speak for you. has published the recent incarceration of an abortionist for sexually harassing patients.

London, England ( -- A British doctor who sometimes did abortions is headed to jail on a four year prison term after being convicted on multiple counts of sexually harassing his patients. Benjamin Deodhar a 63 year-old physician born in India had been practicing medicine in Grimsby, England since 1990.
Deodhar was accused of sexually harassing six patients from a period between September 1991 and December 2004.
Six women accused Deodhar of sexual indecency including one who said he gave her perfume and kissed her, another who got comments about her shapely figure and was asked "Did you enjoy that?" after a very personal examination.
Deodhar pleaded innocent to the charges but was found guilty of indecently assaulting three women and sexually assaulting the patient he kissed, according to a London Daily Mail news report.
"On any view it is the gravest breach of the trust which should, indeed must, exist between doctor and patient," Judge Simon Lawler told him after the verdict. "Each of these women have shown great fortitude and courage in coming forward."
In one case of a 41 year-old woman who came to him for an abortion, Deodhar rubbed and fondled her breasts during an examination. The woman testified that he drove to her home to talk to her a few days later.
She said he also acted physically inappropriately during the abortion and avoided talking to him when he came to her house.
The General Medical Council suspended Deodhar's medical license until June 2007 and he was placed on a register listing sex offenders, according to the London paper.
Deodhar's situation is not unique as other abortion practitioners have been convicted of sexually assaulting patients.
British abortion practitioner Andrew Gbinigie nearly killed a woman in a botched abortion and was the subject of charges of sexual harassment from 35 women has been unable to find a job since multiple hearings were held on the cases.
California abortion practitioner Laurence Reich has had two separate criminal convictions for molesting women during physical exams. Reich has agreed to give up his medical license.
Michigan abortion practitioner Rodolfo Finkelstein fled the country last year after he was charged with sexually abusing women on whom he performed abortions. After failing to appear in court, a judge issued a warrant for the arrest of Finkelstein, who faces two counts of first degree criminal sexual assault which could earn him a life term in prison.
A Houston Planned Parenthood forced an abortion practitioner to resign in October 2004 after he sexually harassed a patient.In February 2004, abortion practitioner Ronald Stevenson, of Oregon, was convicted on two counts of inappropriately touching or kissing a patient.

Saturday, August 26, 2006

Pendergraft Appeals Suspension

The little blessing to the left is a photograph of a third trimester unborn child. It's a perfect illustration for this article.

Florida abortion provider James Pendergraft, whose license was suspended by the Florida Department of Health earlier this month, on Tuesday appealed the suspension to the 1st District Court in Tallahassee, the Orlando Sentinel reports (Shelton, Orlando Sentinel, 8/23).
Pendergraft's license was suspended earlier this month because he allegedly showed a "flagrant disregard for the laws of the state of Florida and a willingness to endanger the lives and health of pregnant patients."
Third-trimester abortions are illegal in Florida except to "save the life or preserve the health of the pregnant woman," in which case, the law requires that the procedure be certified by two physicians and that it be performed in a hospital.
According to the state, Pendergraft in 2004 and 2005 "endangered two female patients by performing third-trimester abortions outside a hospital setting and without concurring certification from a second physician."
Pendergraft's attorney Robert Buonauro said Pendergraft "operated within the (medical) guidelines and protocol" of the state and "had the appropriate certification" for the abortion he performed in July 2005.
Buonauro added that the woman involved in the 2004 abortion was in her second trimester (
Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 8/21).
However, state documents say that Pendergraft did not correctly identify the fetus' gestational age.
Pendergraft said the woman was at 22 or 23 weeks' gestation, but the state documents say the woman actually was at 25 to 27 weeks' gestation (Orlando Sentinel, 8/23).
The suspension means that Pendergraft cannot practice medicine until the state
Board of Medicine reviews his case (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 8/21).
Appeal Details
The appeal asked the court to review the health department's claims and to reinstate Pendergraft's medical license, the Sentinel reports (Orlando Sentinel, 8/23).
Pendergraft in the appeal said that he had the authority required to perform the procedures and that he had stopped providing third-trimester abortions after learning of the rule's requirements that they be performed in a hospital (
AP/Washington Post, 8/23).
Pendergraft's spokesperson Marti Mackenzie said that neither abortion involved a woman in her third trimester, adding, "[C]lose scrutiny" of the records of the woman involved in the July 2005 procedure "reveals the procedure was performed at 24 weeks and six days -- a second-trimester abortion."
The appeal also says the state filed the suspension with the intention of causing him "professional embarrassment and negative publicity," as well as "maximum disruption of services to patients" (Orlando Sentinel, 8/23).
Health department spokesperson Thometta Cozart said the agency had not yet reviewed Pendergraft's appeal and as a result could not comment (AP/Washington Post, 8/23).
The state
Agency for Health Care Administration last week also indefinitely restricted two clinics that Pendergraft partially owns from performing abortions and temporarily has restricted three others that Pendergraft partially owns, according to agency documents (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 8/21). Mackenzie said the lawyers are preparing separate appeals for each of the clinics (Orlando Sentinel, 8/23).

Before I even begin commenting I think any pro-life person with integrity needs to clarify that the vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester. Over 90% occur in the first trimester with abortions after becoming increasingly rare with each passing week. Women having third-trimester abortions represent 1-3% of abortions performed depending upon which study you read and believe. I think that has to be honestly stated as part of having an intelligent exchange on abortion.

Most of the abortions that are performed in the latter stages of pregnancy relate to medical information gained about the baby. Genetic testing that has revealed a problem with the baby represents the most significant reason for these abortions. That is not to say that the baby has a life-threatening problem but often times the baby has a disability. The recent abortion of a baby with a harelip is probably the most recent example that came to national attention but usually the disabilities and challenges exceed that situation. I am not saying that to defend the abortion of disabled children so are valuable members of our human family but to be clear that most abortions performed at that stage are not for socio-economic decisions.

Moving on now!

Third trimester abortions are far more complicated procedures than ones performed in the first trimester. The complication rate for the mother is much higher than in earlier stages and to provide that procedure outside of a hospital is actually shocking to me just based on my belief that the acuity of care that is offered in a clinic is not sufficient. I think that the clinical judgement of someone who would make that decision and who would not partner with another physician in making that decision - if those are the correct facts - needs to be questioned. Those kind of practices, in my opinon, put a patient's life at risk. People who care about women's health - even if they agree with abortion - should be asking why such medical care would be provided to women.