Wednesday, November 28, 2007

: When Holding On is a Crime

My alternative parenting choices have often elicited criticism and ridicule from the world outside my home. But the comment I hear most recently is the one that hits me right in the mother self-doubt department. It's the condescending "Sounds like you just don't want to let go."

It's an accusation I've heard before. And if holding on is a crime, then I'm guilty as charged. I confess, I have a long rap sheet of offenses. The letting go police are always on my heels, reading me my right to send my kids out into the world without me.

It all started several years ago when I was reprimanded for staying home with my daughter. Apparently, I broke some unwritten law of feminism when I declined to "let her go" to day care. But it wasn't an act of rebellion or possessiveness. My partner in crime and I just felt that it was only natural for our baby to be in her mother's care.

The second charge against me came during the same year. It was my first year of motherhood, and I was a suspect in an assisted crib break. It's true. I helped my baby escape from her crib jail and allowed her to hide out in our king size family bed. I even let two subsequent members of our gang use the same hideout, but I slumbered in fear of getting caught. It seems we were always covering our tracks and concealing evidence. When word got out that we were cosleepers, I was essentially tried and convicted by a jury of parenting peers.

I knew I had already sealed my fate when I went so far as to shun the preschool experience and keep my three and four-year-old at home. But the recent confession that I planned to homeschool my daughter instead of sending her to kindergarten, that was the last straw. Now I was a wanted mom. A well-meaning posse of family, friends, and acquaintances tried to convince me to change my ways.

"She can't stay home forever."

"Sounds like you just don't want to let go."

If they had been talking about a college kid, I might have surrendered to the attachment patrol. But who decided that the official time for letting go is five years of age?

I think this whole letting go philosophy is getting out of hand. It's a natural emotion to want to hold on to a baby, a toddler, or a young child. It even makes sense. At an age when my daughter can barely speak up for herself, let alone defend herself, my internal logic pleads with me to stick close by, to monitor the surroundings, and not to trust just anyone to take my place.

I'm advised to ignore that voice. I'm told that it's the voice of weakness, of irrational concern, and of my own selfish longings.

But am I to ignore the voices of my children too? The sound of a baby crying for her mama in the middle of the night? Or the voice of my oldest child saying she'd rather stay home with her family than go to school?

My daugher is not pulling away. She's not asking to be let go of. On the contrary, when given a choice, she'd rather go fishing with mom or dad than go to an amusement park with anyone else.

Call it emotion or logic or insecurity. Call it what you will. But my inner voice/my heart/my maternal instincts/the Holy Spirit doesn't say anything about letting go just yet. When it does, I will listen. When my daughter seems ready, I will send her out into the world on her own. But that time does not always come by the ripe old age of five.

I stand accused, but I stand by my convictions. I will continue to pour my heart and soul, my time and energy, my intelligence and creativity into nurturing my children. And if this kind of "holding on" is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

A wonderful article that can be found at and many more like it!

Planned Parenthood-Endorsed Book for Young Children too “Sexually Explicit” for Prisoners

WASHINGTON, November 28, 2007 ( – Excerpts from a sexually explicit book published for children aged eight to thirteen have been banned from Internet sites and from a Washington state prison for its “inappropriate content”. The book includes graphic depictions of genitalia, different forms of contraception, tampons and menstrual pads, and depicts people engaged in sex. It explains non-vaginal sex such as oral and anal sex. It has little to say about virginity (the word does not appear in the index), abstinence or chastity.

As a tool of the homosexual movement, it has been endorsed for its usefulness in that it describes homosexuality and bisexuality as simply other ways of being and goes on to explain that although some people feel hate towards homosexuals, such opinions are based on misinformation. The book attacks the religious objection to masturbation, saying, “Some religions call masturbation a sin, but masturbating cannot hurt you.” This is followed by illustrations and instructions.

The book is “It's Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex, and Sexual Health”, was published in 1996 for children aged eight to thirteen and is under fire again from pro-life and pro-family advocates. It is strongly endorsed by Planned Parenthood as a means of teaching children that whatever sexual activity they would like to engage in is “perfectly normal”. It explains how to use contraception and endorses abortion and the medically discredited “safe sex” propaganda to avoid sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS. Its author, Robie Harris, was on Planned Parenthood’s national board of advocates.

“It's Perfectly Normal” was included in the American Library Association's list of “most frequently challenged books of 2005” for “homosexuality, nudity, sex education, religious viewpoint, abortion and being unsuited to age group.” It ranked #15 in the Association’s list of “100 most frequently challenged books 1990-2000”.

“How can anyone claim that this book is appropriate for 10 year olds?” asked Jim Sedlak, vice-president for American Life League.

The comments follow revelations a few months ago that a Washington State prison rejected a letter that included images from the book on the grounds that they are too “sexually explicit” and “obscene” to be allowed in the prison.

Last week American Life League posted a video report about the book on several Internet sites. That report was removed from three of these sites,, and for "inappropriate content," and flagged on for viewers over 18.

The video report asks, “If these images are too obscene for adult prisoners, why are they good for ten year-old children?”

“We are calling for libraries, schools and parents all across the country to take similar action," Sedlak concluded. "Planned Parenthood should be denied access to our children at all times. The material it promotes is totally inappropriate and could be harmful."

View a report by American Life League: ;

The head of a Kansas-based pro-life group is demanding an apology and monetary damages after the driver of a pro-life truck was illegally arrested and his truck impounded in Atlanta.

Bob Roethlisberger was arrested and jailed over Thanksgiving weekend in a northern suburb of Atlanta, Georgia, on the charge of "disorderly conduct" for driving Operation Rescue's "Truth Truck" bearing signs with photos of aborted babies. The truck subsequently was impounded, and was released late Monday.

Gwinnett County Police Department officers arrested Roethlisberger Saturday after telling him that signage on the Truth Truck was "vulgar and obscene." According to the pro-life group, officers "ransacked" the back of the Truth Truck without a warrant and ordered Roethlisberger to change or remove the signs. When he refused, he was arrested and incarcerated for three days before being released on $1,000 bond.

Operation Rescue president Troy Newman says the officers' action were a violation of constitutional rights and illegal.

"These officers actually took a utility knife and cut these signs off of our completely legal, registered, and insured vehicle, and incarcerated our driver," the pro-life leader explains. "I would think this is an abuse of power, and we're going to use all civil remedies to rectify the situation."

Newman alleges that the officers punished Roethlisberger, who otherwise cooperated with authorities, for expressing a viewpoint with which they disagreed. "[Bob] refused to compromise on his message," notes Newman, "which is unequivocally protected by the First Amendment." In addition, he points out the legal right to display the images on the trucks has been upheld in courts across the nation.

But the illegal arrest and destruction of property by the police does prove one thing, Newman asserts. "If these pictures are so graphic and horrible that we don't want to see them, perhaps we shouldn't be tolerating the act of abortion," he shares.

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Stop Child Abuse

A grand jury will decide in early December whether to indict a Tennessee man on charges that he raped two of his daughters and forced them to wear an electric-shock dog collar. His wife may also face trial for failing to intervene.

Wayne Burkhart Jr., 38, and his wife, Rebecca, 35, were in court yesterday as Claiborne County Judge Robert Estep ruled that the case should go before a grand jury.

Related Stories
Girl: Mom Forced Genitalia PiercingTop U.S. stories
Malibu Residents Begin Returning HomeThanksgiving Travelers Return HomeShoppers Gone Wild: Black Friday Bonanza
The husband and wife were arrested in September. Wayne Burkhart faces two counts of aggravated child assault and two counts of rape. Rebecca Burkhart was charged with aggravated child neglect and failing to report child abuse.

"We're pleased with yesterday's results, and we feel the judge's decision was consistent with the evidence," Claiborne County Assistant District Attorney Jared Effler told ABC News.

Burkhart's 17-year-old daughter told authorities in a Sept. 10 interview that she had been sexually and physically abused by her father, according to the complaint affidavit. "Among other things, her father [the defendant] uses dog collars equipped with electric shock to train his hunting dogs, and that he uses the collar on her to shock her and her 19-year-old sister," the affidavit reads.

The teen told authorities her father used the shock collar on her Sept. 9 "because he was mad at her for going out with a boy."

The teen also said that her mother had witnessed this and that her father typically put the collar around her midcalf to shock her. The girl's siblings, 15, 11 and 13, corroborated the account, according to the court documents.

Both teens showed investigators bruises consistent with an electric dog collar and the girl also said that her father held a shotgun to her head and said that if she "ever told anyone, he would kill himself, her and anyone who tried to remove her from his home," the affidavit reads.

Burkhart's children also said that their stepmother, Rebecca Burkhart, had been present when the dog collar was used. "At none of these times," the affidavit reads, "did [Rebecca Burkhart] attempt to call law enforcement or seek medical treatment for her stepdaughter."

A TODDLER bled to death after her stepfather flew into a rage and crushed her against the edge of a bathroom sink, a Melbourne court has been told.

Phong Gia Quach, 23, told police he intended to scare the three-year-old into obeying him after an illness caused her to continually vomit on herself, not into a bucket as he had asked.

He pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the Victorian Supreme Court today.

Quach put Liliana Lam on the floor and pushed on her stomach with both hands, then picked her up and pushed her forcefully over the edge of the basin on May 3 last year at their Noble Park home, the court was told.

Liliana died less than an hour after being taken to Monash Medical Centre the next day.

The court was told Quach admitted to police he might have killed Liliana but never intended to hurt her.

Prosecutor Geoff Horgan SC said Quach gave a bizarre reason for his actions, saying Liliana's grandparents had accused him of being a drug user and bashing her so he thought "if I'm going to be accused of it I might as well do it".

The court was told Liliana had suffered an abdominal injury at least eight weeks before her death which had left her fragile.

But Mr Horgan said there was no evidence about how this injury had occurred.

Defence lawyer Robert Richter QC said his client was remorseful and had insufficient parenting skills to deal with Liliana.

He said there was no evidence Quach had been a "serious, brutal and sadistic carer", instead he had simply lost his composure with the youngster.

Quach was remanded in custody for sentence on a date to be fixed.,23599,22791247-421,00.html

VIDEO REPORT: Mother refuses abortion, daughter celebrates 16 years

Lori Vance went against the doctors' wishes and saw her pregnancy through to birth.

Now on her daughter's sweet sixteenth birthday, the family is celebrating her triumphant life.

The Vance family told News Channel 11 that a fatal disorder isn't always a death sentence.

At 16-years-old, one of the hardest decisions for Donna Joy Vance is what to wear.

Sitting on the couch with her mother, Donna blushes over a TV crush. "We're celebrating Donna Joy's 16th birthday,” Lori Vance Said. “It's a special day because it's a day the doctors and so-called experts way back when said would never come to be."

At seven months into the pregnancy, doctors realized that Donna Joy had a brain disorder called Holoprosencephaly, or HPE.

Physicians told Lori Vance that her child would be completely blind, likely deaf, likely born with no face, no ability to move limbs or suck and swallow.

"Basically, everything that makes you a human being was going to be missing," Vance told News Channel 11. "They wanted to terminate the pregnancy because they said she was going to die anyway," Vance said.

Vance refused.
She was determined to give Donna Joy a chance. "Even if it was only for a few minutes—to give her some dignity, wrap her up in a pretty blanket. Say ‘I love you’ and let her go," Vance said.

But mother and child never had to say goodbye.
Donna Joy is beating the odds.

While the pre-natal studies on Donna Joy's brain were accurate, her functions have surpassed expectations.

"She didn't read the book on this disorder,” Vance said. “No one told her she couldn't do these things. So she does them anyway."

Among Donna Joy's accomplishments: Special Olympics track medals, modeling, singing and beauty pageants.

Rocky Mountain NewsHome News Business Sports Entertainment Living Outdoors Opinion Multimedia Your Space Jobs Autos Homes Classifieds Shop Local Nation World Weather Traffic Education Politics Obituaries Special Reports Columns & Blogs Tech & Telecom Money & Markets Airlines & Aerospace Real Estate Energy Health Care Retail Skiing & Tourism More Business Special Reports Columns & Blogs Broncos Avalanche Nuggets Rockies Rapids College Fantasy Sports Racing Olympics Golf More Sports Rocky Preps Special Reports Columns & Blogs Movies TV Music Art & Architecture Theater Dining Nightlife Books Fun & Games Events More Entertainment Special Reports Columns & Blogs Health & Fitness Fashion Food Home & Garden More Living Special Reports Columns & Blogs Mountain Activities Escapes Hunting & Fishing Skiing & Snowboarding Camping Hiking More Outdoors Special Reports Editorials Letters to the Editor Speakout Poll Archive Special Reports Columns & Blogs Photo Archive Photo Galleries Video Audio & Podcasts Special Reports Front Page Gallery Your Photos Your Votes Polls
Shoppers on your mark, get set … tell us how it isJoin the discussion | RockyTalk Live
Buffs appear to be on solid footingRead the column | Bernie Lincicome
Lubick deserves loyalty from CSU.Read the column | Dave Krieger
Bargains are in the minds of the bleary-eyedRead the column | Bill JohnsonHome › News › Local News
No-holds-barred abortion battle
'Personhood' amendment could ban some birth control, stem-cell research
By Lisa Ryckman, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Related StoriesPrayer as teen led to campaign for unborn
More Local NewsBonds of war
Town's response brings people together after boy's death
Two suffer burns in Thanksgiving Day fires
Story Tools
Email this Print this Comments Change text size Subscribe to print edition iPod friendly Share this site Digg Newsvine Map my newsA©2007 Yahoo! Inc.Data ©Navteq,TeleAtlasIt's known as the "Definition of a Person" in Colorado, the "Ultimate Human Life Amendment" in Mississippi, the "Paramount Right to Life Amendment" in Georgia and the "Personhood Amendment" in Michigan.

In each case, the measure would change the state constitution to define a fertilized egg as a person entitled to constitutional protections of inalienable rights, justice and due process. And in every case, it's part of a no-compromise anti-abortion strategy that has created a deep divide between those state groups that want a direct attack on Roe v. Wade and those that prefer National Right to Life's incremental approach.

But abortion-rights supporters and opponents agree that Colorado's "personhood" amendment would outlaw abortion and potentially have much broader effects.

Toni Panetta, deputy director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, called the amendment the "latest volley in the death by a thousand paper cuts by anti-choice activists."

She said the amendment potentially could outlaw any form of birth control that makes the uterus a hostile environment, including intrauterine devices and the "morning after" pill, as well as other oral contraceptives.

Colorado Right to Life spokesman Bob Enyart said he thought it also could mean an end to embryonic stem-cell research. "The goal is to stop the killing of unborn children by reasserting the personhood of the unborn," he said.

But Kristi Burton, the 20- year-old head of Colorado for Equal Rights, the group behind the initiative, refused to speculate on what might happen.

"The goal is simply to define when life begins," she said this week after the State Supreme Court cleared the way for the measure by accepting the argument that it fit the definition of a one-issue initiative. "We'll see where it takes us."

Political road ahead

At least for the next six months, the amendment will take Burton and her supporters into the churches they plan to use as bases to collect the 76,000 signatures needed to put it on the November 2008 ballot.

It will probably get there, said independent political analyst Eric Sondermann, but he predicted that it won't play well in a state where more than 60 percent of adults support abortion rights.

"This one is a frontal assault on the right to choose," he said. "Every poll and analysis I've seen shows this is a pro-choice state. If you go at the very core of the right to choose without any exception, it's going to be a very tough political row to hoe."

The measure represents a hard-line strategy by abortion opponents to overturn Roe v. Wade by zeroing in on what they consider a loophole in the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established abortion rights.

"The (state of Texas and others) argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment," Justice Harry Blackmun wrote for the majority. "If this suggestion of personhood is established, (Roe's) case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment."

The hope by anti-abortion groups is that such an amendment would be challenged up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which would uphold it, thereby affirming the "personhood" of the fertilized egg and effectively undoing Roe.

But the strategy has created a rift between state groups and National Right to Life, which prefers to be more subtle.

"National Right to Life is more in favor of the incremental approach, and they don't want people like us and people in the states to even do human life amendments," said Brian Rooney, an attorney with the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which gives free legal help to groups pushing "personhood" measures. "They believe it's not the right time. But we believe it's never the wrong time to do the right thing. The incremental approach has not stopped one abortion from happening."

Colorado voting history

To abortion-rights activists, approach is irrelevant, Panetta said. "It doesn't matter whether they take on Roe in its entirety or chip away at the rights," she said. "Both attempts deny women the right to choose and access to safe medical care."

An amendment similar to Colorado's is still alive in Georgia and Mississippi, but it died in the Montana legislature, failed to get enough signatures in Michigan and was tossed out in Oregon, where Thomas More attorneys have filed a lawsuit.

In recent years, Colorado voters haven't been supportive of measures that limit abortion access. In 2006, backers of a proposal to ban late-term abortions failed to turn in signatures to place the measure on the November ballot.

About 60 percent of voters in 2000 rejected Amendment 25, a measure to delay abortions 24 hours while women perused information on medical risks and other options.

If Colorado voters were to pass a "personhood" amendment, they would be doing something that Justice Blackmun himself refused to do: pinpoint the moment life begins.

"When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus," he wrote in Roe, "the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

Proposed Initiative 36

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution defining the term "person" to include any human being from the moment of fertilization as "person" is used in those provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law?

* Supporters say: The amendment would be challenged in court and make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which would use it to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

* Opponents say: The amendment is misleading because it fails to state its main goal, which is to outlaw abortion. It would open a Pandora's box of legal problems by giving fertilized eggs the right to access Colorado's courts.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News
Posted by JohnSWren on November 24, 2007 at 6:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When does a woman become a mother, and her child gain equal rights?

When the child draws its first breath? When it is conceived? When it can defeat its father in physical combat?

Who decides? In our representative form of government, in the long run it is our elected representatives. The League of Women voters has said your voice counts most in electing them at your neighborhood caucus. One vote can often make the differnce in nominating candidates and passing resolutions.

Resolutions on both sides of the question are sure to be offered across the state February 5 at the 6000 or so meetings with neighbors at our Colorado caucus.

To have a voice and to be part of the decision, you must register with the political party of your choice by December 5. To learn more Google “Colorado caucus.”

Posted by Theoldguy on November 24, 2007 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is an obvious far reaching quest by the anti-abortion folks simply because the claim that a fertilized clump of cells has the same human rights that a full term human has goes beyond reason. A fertilized human egg has to go through a "proof of viability test" to become a human being. The fertilized egg must first become stronger that its uterine environment after traveling along the fallopian tubes that may, or may not, be conducive to fertilized egg travel. Some of these passages are genetically inferior of may have been damaged by disease or chemicals. This isn't even considering the genetic make up of the two parents' genes which may have far reaching compatibility issues. There are so many variables to an egg becoming full term, or not, that it goes far beyond a simplistic answer being produced by this remedy. Sticking to the wishes of this group one can imagine that a spontaneous abortion would be a crime of the mother.
Knowing that this is an emotional issue, is it wise to let others set the standard? Many less knowledgeable people will be expected to decide this issue. Are the four named states really a repository of in depth knowledge that supports the wishes of the other 46 states?

Posted by Iceman on November 24, 2007 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"We'll see where it takes us."

Regardless of your stance on abortion this is reason enough to oppose the measure. If proponents of a proposal aren't fully aware of the legal impacts, intended or otherwise, there's no way it should be supported. I say this based on years of legal analysis of legislation from an impartial perspective. This isn't just an argument opponents of the measure can and should make - it could be a disaster for pro-life supporters if this measure triggers a flurry of unintended problems that turns public sentiment against such proposals in the future.

Posted by gloriapoole on November 24, 2007 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A human being with human DNA and human cells is human and should be defined as "person" and human for the sake of Constitutional protection. The medical professions, particularly obstetrics, and neonatology defined the moment of life as the moment of fertilization long ago. The reason the Judiciary pretends not to know that, is the love of money that The Bible warns against. [I Timothy 6:10 *] Of course, that only makes the Judiciary branches look foolish and out of touch with truth. And it makes clear the fact that propaganda is the tool of the devil still.

Abortion is death to an innocent human being. That is fact. It is also premeditated because the killers prepare their instruments and their "operating room" that is often not much better than a back-office room of the preborn assassin's work place. There is much testimony that abortionists do not follow standard operating room procedures nor do they have admitting privileges to hospitals for emergency care of the women they butcher. It is also medical fact that millions of women who aborted were rendered sterile and have deep, abiding sorrow and regrets because of that.
The premeditated, purposeful destruction of innocent human life is NOT a right. GOD's commandment is "thou shalt not kill" [Exodus 20:13], and JESUS said, "even so it is not the will of your FATHER which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." [Matthew 18:14]
GOD willing there are more good people in U.S. than wicked, and they will know the truth and vote the truth. It is the right thing to do to outlaw all abortions as soon as possible. It is also the right thing for all those millions of women who were deceived to repent and turn away from such evil, for the sake of your relationship to GOD ALMIGHTY, and the peace of your soul.
I write this as a Registered Nurse of many years who worked in Operating Rooms. I refused to participate in medical killing or call that a "right" and got fired for it, and then was fired again for protesting with words the killing of innocents in hospitals, that is supposedly a First Amendment liberty. However, it is written, "be not deceived. GOD is not mocked. For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."[Galatians 6:7] Those in this nation who have purposely, year after year, voted to continue the mass murders of millions of innocents who were created in the womb by GOD, are going to have to face GOD on HIS JUDGEMENT DAY and h--- is waiting for them. Those who sat by and did nothing to help the innocents, those who actively shredded and murdered innocents, those women who signed the lives of their innocents away on a deceitful "informed consent", those accomplices to evil who stood and handed instruments of death, will also have to give an account before GOD.
signed gloria poole {RN} licensed as Gloria Poole Pappas, RN in Colorado

Posted by rogercopy on November 24, 2007 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why do abortion opponents continue to act as God? The 10 commandments tell us that we should have no other God before Him. In judging and condemning those who support a person's right to control their own body, abortion foes are acting as God, instead of allowing him to do it himself. What human has the right to act as judge and executioner over another human? Opponents should live their own lives and allow God to judge those who would "murder" unborn children. To act on behalf of God and judge someone here on Earth is blasphemy.

Furthermore, why aren't all these abortion foes helping out in Darfur? Many already born babies are dying everyday. Could it be that their righteous dogmatic nature propels them to be our "moral police"? It's hypocritical and sinful for abortion opponents to be so unbalanced in their quest to save lives. It reveals their purpose to be furthering their religious/political agenda, rather than actually saving lives.

Posted by Joanna on November 24, 2007 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So, when does it end. Cancer cells are alive too? Do we protect them? They are part of the human body, so god must want them there, right? Isn't it desecrating human life to remove part of our god-given body?

Will the voters have a solution for all these babies that will be born? Who takes care of them? Face it, we already have enough "parents" who don't do their we force women who don't want to have a baby to deliver a child. Then what?

And I am SO SO SO tired of the BS lines about women who've had abortions who are permanently damaged. That's crap. They've been brainwashed by those around them.

I don't like abortion. I think there are far better forms of birth control, such as abstinence, birth-control pills, IUDs, and other tried and true methods. But I once found myself in a position where I had to make a decision. It was actually quite easy. I protected the one child I had and I protected myself. I had an abortion, because that's what I needed to do to begin becoming a productive member of our society. I got off drugs, graduated from college, worked 2 jobs to pay for it all, and raised my son to become the fine young man he is today.

Oh, yes. It was my choices and my fault that I found myself in the position I did. It was also my choice to pull myself up by my bootstraps and fix things.

Notice all the CHOICES I made? Who are you to tell me I was wrong?,1,4569441.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&ctrack=2&cset=true

OTTAWA -- Amid reports that he may be charged under the Elections Act for matters dating back to the 2004 election, MP Wajid Khan is "stepping aside" from the Conservative Party caucus.

"The decision was made following media reports that he may be charged under the Elections Act over matters dating back to the 2004 election, when he ran as a candidate for the Liberal Party," a news release issued late Friday from Khan's office said.

Charges were filed in court earlier this month against Khan. He is accused of violating the Elections Canada Act by allegedly overspending during the 2004 federal campaign.

"Although I have not yet been served with court documents, given the circumstances, I am withdrawing from the Conservative caucus to sit as an independent MP," Khan said in the statement. "I have also offered the Prime Minister my resignation as his Special Advisor for Middle Eastern and South Asian Affairs."

Khan said he would continue to sit as an indepedent MP.

The charge was filed in court Nov. 15 after getting the required approval from the Director of Public Prosecutions, after an investigation by the Elections Commissioner.

Khan ran as a Liberal Party candidate in 2004 and 2006, but crossed the floor in January 2007 to sit as a Conservative party member. He is alleged to have exceeded allowable spending by 40 per cent.

"In the 2004 campaign, Wajid Khan is accused of overspending his limit for campaign expenses and making a campaign expense by someone other than an official agent," Dan Brien of the Public Prosecutions Service of Canada told CTV News.

There are charges filed against: Khan, Khalid Sagheer, and Khan's auto dealership, Dufferin Mazda.

The Globe and Mail's Campbell Clark told CTV Newsnet that it's relatively rare in Canada to see charges laid for overspending.

Khan could face up to five years in jail if he's found guilty of the charges.

While the charges have been filed in court, Khan's lawyer said earlier Friday the MP has not been served with any papers.

"Contrary to the news reports, Mr. Khan was not charged with any offences today. To be clear Mr. Khan has not been served with any process or summons in relation to any Elections Act charges," Scott K. Fenton wrote in a statement to CTV News.

The Mississauga MP was elected as a Liberal candidate twice, in 2004 and 2006. He took a position as a special adviser on Middle East issues to Prime Minister Stephen Harper before crossing the floor and joining the Conservatives last January.

Khan has been a controversial member of Parliament, refusing to make public a report he wrote while visiting the Middle East.