Colorado was the first state to decriminalize abortion and last year was the first state to have on its ballot a personhood amendment which is now spreading to 16 other states and growing (see personhoodusa.com. It appears next year once again the people of Colorado will have an opportunity to make amends. See Testimony of the very Roe of Roe v Wade after finding forgiveness in Christ for her sins. Once abortion activist now trying to reverse Roe v Wade better yet a copy of that post is below videos.



Related: TV ads from personhood.net. Vote for your favorite.
From Personhood Colorado to Personhood USA

Here is an ad from last year...

The Scarecrow from Personhood USA on Vimeo.

Below is testimony of the very Roe of Roe v Wade that legalized abortion in 1973 in America. The testimony below is in 2005 after Roe had found forgiveness in Christ for her sins. Click here for link of testimony at Senate.gov.


Testimony of

Norma McCorvey

(The former Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade)

June 23, 2005


TESTIMONY OF NORMA MCCORVEY, THE FORMER ROE OF ROE v. WADE, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
JUNE 23, 2005
I am the woman once known as the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade. But I dislike the name Jane Roe and all that it stands for. I am a real person named Norma McCorvey and I want you to know the horrible and evil things that Roe v. Wade did to me and others. I never got the opportunity to speak for myself in my own court case. I am not a trained spokesperson, nor a judge, but I am a real person – a living human being who was supposed to be helped by my lawyers and the courts in Roe v. Wade. But instead, I believe that I was used and abused by the court system in America. Instead of helping women in Roe v. Wade, I brought destruction to me and millions of women throughout the nation. In 1970, I was pregnant for the third time. I was not married and I truly did not know what to do with this pregnancy. I had already put one child up for adoption and it was difficult to place a child for adoption because of the natural bond that occurs between a woman and her child. And after all, a woman becomes a mother as soon as she is pregnant, not when the child is born. And women are now speaking out about their harmful experiences from legal abortion.
1
Instead of getting me financial or vocational help, instead of helping me to get off of drugs and alcohol, instead of working for open adoption or giving me other help, my lawyers wanted to eliminate the right of society to protect women and children from abortionists. My lawyers were looking for a young, white woman to be a guinea pig for a great new social experiment, somewhat like Adolf Hitler did. I wanted an abortion at the time, but my lawyers did not tell me that I would be killing a human being. My lawyers did not inform me about the life-changing consequences of this decision. I was living on the streets. And while I was confused and conflicted about the decision for many years, and while I was once an advocate for abortion, like many women who choose to participate in abortion, my lawyers did not tell me that I would later come to deeply regret that I was partially responsible for killing 40-50 million human beings. Do you have any idea how much emotional grief I have experienced? It is like a living hell knowing that you have had a part to play, though in some sense I was just a pawn of the legal system. But I have had to accept my role in the deaths of millions of babies and the destruction of women's lives. I will tell you later how I have tried to cope with that. How did I come to the position where I am today?
2
Abortion is a shameful and secret thing. I wanted to justify my desire for an abortion in my own mind, as almost every woman who participates in the killing of her own child must also do. I made up the story that I had been raped to help justify my abortion. Why would I make up a lie to justify my conduct? Abortion itself is a lie and it is based on lies. My lawyers didn't tell me that abortion would be used for sex selection, but later when I was a pro-choice advocate and worked in abortion clinics, I found women who were using abortion as a means of gender selection. My lawyers didn't tell me that future children would be getting abortions and losing their innocence. Yet I saw young girls getting abortions who were never the same. In 1973, when I learned about the Roe v. Wade decision from the newspapers, not my lawyers, I didn't feel real elated. After all, the decision didn't help me at all. I never had an abortion. I gave my baby up for adoption since the baby was born before the legal case was over. I am glad today that that child is alive and that I did not elect to abort. I was actually silent about my role in abortion for many years and did not speak out at all. Then, in the 1980's, in order to justify my own conduct, with many conflicting emotions, I did come forward publicly to support Roe v. Wade. Keep in mind that I had not had an abortion and did not know much about it at the time.
3
Then around 1992, I began to work in abortion clinics. Like most Americans, including many of you Senators, I had no actual experience with abortion until that point. When I began to work in the abortion clinics, I became even more emotionally confused and conflicted between what my conscience knew to be evil, and what the judges, my mind and my need for money were telling me was OK. I saw women crying in the recovery rooms. If abortion is so right, why were the women crying? Even Senator Hillary Clinton on January 25, 2005 was reported by the New York Times to finally admit "that abortion is a sad, even tragic choice for many, many women." Actually it is a tragic choice for every child that is killed and every woman and man who participates in killing their own child, whether they know it at the time or not. Many women will be in denial and even pro-choice for years like I was. But participating in the murder of your own child will eat away at your conscience forever if you do not take steps to cleanse your conscience, which I will discuss later. I saw the baby parts, which are a horrible sight to see, but I urge everyone who supports abortion to look at the bodies to face the truth of what they support. I saw filthy conditions in abortions clinics even when "Roe" was supposed to clean up "back alley" abortions. I saw the low regard for women from abortion doctors. My conscience was bothering me more and more, causing me to drink more and more and more. If you are trapped in
4
wrongdoing then all you can do is justify and defend your actions, but the pain gets worse and worse, so I drank a lot to kill the pain. Finally, in 1995, a pro-life organization moved its offices right next door to the abortion clinic where I was working. I acted hatefully towards those people. But those people acted lovingly to me most of the time. One man did angrily accuse me at one point of being responsible for killing 40 million babies, but he later came to me and apologized for his words and said they were not motivated by love. The answer to the abortion problem is forgiveness, repentance, and love. Many of the women who abort their babies ask the little babies to forgive them. Even some abortionists encourage women to write cards explaining their behavior and asking the child's forgiveness. This is an old Japanese custom also. The web is filled with post-abortion recovery and grief sites. According to an amicus brief filed in my case, 100,000 women a year enter abortion recovery counseling programs. Abortion is not a simple medical procedure that is safer than childbirth, it is the killing of a human being. It produces severe psychological and emotional consequences. We can ask the children to forgive us, but the children are dead. They say – Alone, I was born. Alone, I shall die. We must also ask Almighty God to forgive us for what we have done. We must repent of our action as a nation in allowing this holocaust to come to our shores. We have to turn from our wicked ways. Senators, I urge you to examine your own conscience before
5
Almighty God. God is willing and able to forgive you. He sent His own son Jesus Christ to die on the cross for my sins as Roe of Roe v. Wade, and for our sins in failing to act to end abortion and to truly help women in crisis pregnancies. I finally asked the Lord Jesus to forgive me in 1995 and immediately dedicated my life to saving children's and women's lives. In the year 2000, I met the lawyers from The Justice Foundation, Allan Parker and Clayton Trotter who are here behind me. I asked them to help me to reverse Roe v. Wade legally. We began collecting evidence from women about the devastating consequences of abortion in their lives. Women are very reluctant to speak about this horrible act which is a crime against humanity. In many cases the denial goes on for decades before they break. Women who have had an abortion often can't even tell their husbands, parents, family, friends or even their physicians or clergy. It is like a time bomb in the heart of every woman who's had an abortion. Eventually we collected almost 1,500 affidavits and filed a motion to reverse Roe v. Wade. As part of my statement to you today, I am enclosing summaries of those women's affidavits along with pictures of some of the women so you can see what abortion does to real women. I am also going to file copies of all the affidavits collected. Also behind me today are some of those witnesses whose affidavits were before the Supreme Court and I would like to ask them to stand at this time.
6
These women hurt by abortion have formed a movement they call Operation Outcry to cry out to you, to the courts and to God Almighty to end this scourge of abortion in our nation. The Rev. Martin Luther King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference helped lead America non-violently to end the scourge of segregation. When slavery was constitutional, we treated one class of humans as property. We are treating the humans in the mother's womb as property and less than human when we say it is OK to kill them. How can we have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, when we have death by abortion? I have also included an essay on the Scott Peterson double-murder conviction which asks how one baby is a person that can be murdered but not another. On February 22, 2005, the Supreme Court declined to take my case. I was good enough for the courts when they wanted to impose abortion on America, but I wasn't good enough when I asked them to look at the hard evidence of what they have done to America. The Supreme Court of the United States should be ashamed of itself. It has taken this matter of abortion away from the states, the people, and the legislatures, but it refuses to look at the evidence of what it has done. How shameful is that? How can we have liberty without life? Every member of the Supreme Court who supports Roe should be impeached and I believe we should to limit the terms of Supreme Court justices to 8 years. The
7
Supreme Court has hurt me and millions of women and children. I urge you to do everything in your power to reverse Roe v. Wade. Since the Supreme Court did not reject our arguments, we are continuing to bring those arguments before the court in case after case after case, including Sandra Cano's case which is in the courts now. Please do not ask a judicial nominee to pledge to maintain Roe v. Wade. If new evidence comes before the court, then the court should be willing change its old precedent, as it has many times. Roe v. Wade is not in the Constitution. It is just a bad Supreme Court decision with bad effects and needs to be reversed. I also support a constitutional amendment to protect all human life. I am also attaching a copy of my 13-page affidavit which was filed in our lawsuit to reverse Roe v. Wade. Some things should never be allowed, even if we want to do them. Murder is one, child abuse is another and allowing abortionists to harm women is another. Thank you, Senators.

Share/Bookmark

Related: New York Times editor admits paper slow on ACORN until it's too late and New York Times just now discovers abortion as part of healthcare fight.
Video reporting on the need and recent successes of Grassroots Alternative Media
Public opinion in accuracy of news stories are at a 20 year low but Values Voter News has a suggestion

Also, March on Media event see: March on Media event on 10/17/2009 web site moves into the top 120,000 sites in the US in just two weeks of existence

NYT: Modest Lefty Pittsburgh Protest Comparable to Huge Conservative Protest in D.C.

By: Clay Waters
September 29, 2009 16:43 ET

Ian Urbina's Saturday New York Times story from the Group of 20 economic meeting in Pittsburgh last weekend, about left-wing and anarchist protesters who took to the streets, came under a headline that misleadingly implied peace abided: "In Pittsburgh, Thousands Stage a Peaceful March for Multiple Causes."

Yet in paragraph four we learned there were 66 arrests in downtown Pittsburgh, and "about 19 businesses sustained broken windows or other damage." And while the Times was loathe to estimate the crowd size of the enormous September 12 anti-Obama protest in Washington, the Times forwarded estimates from "observers" at the lefty Pittsburgh protest who "put the crowd...at 3,000 to 4,000."

While the peaceful September 12 crowd was tarred in the Times as "angry" and "profane" with "no shortage of vitriol," Urbina downplayed the actual violence and vandalism committed by a far smaller band of anarchists in downtown Pittsburgh.

A headline reader could assume that the September 12 conservative protest in Washington and the anarchist protest in Pittsburgh were of the same magnitude, as both used the term "thousands" to describe the crowd size.

The Times's print headline from the conservative rally, where the low end of crowd estimates was 70,000 and some estimates went much higher: "Thousands Attend Broad Protest of Government."



The Times's print headline from the left-wing/anarchist protest, in which "observers" estimated 3,000-4000: "In Pittsburgh, Thousands Stage a Peaceful March for Multiple Causes."

An excerpt from Urbina's piece from Pittsburgh:

Several thousand demonstrators espousing and denouncing a host of causes converged on downtown Pittsburgh on Friday, chanting, pumping up signs and playing instruments in a peaceful and permitted march calling for solutions to a range of problems that they attributed to the economic policies of the world leaders at the Group of 20 meeting.

Protesters with Iraq Veterans Against the War, wearing fatigues, marched alongside Tibetans chiming cymbals, chanting denunciations of China and waving signs, like one that read "G20 Let's Talk Tibet." Students for Justice in Palestine assembled on Forbes Avenue and called for an end to "the Israeli occupation." Others held up signs like "We Say No To Corporate Greed," and "We say yes to human needs."

....

The People's March, as it was called, was sponsored by the Thomas Merton Center, a Pittsburgh peace organization. It came a day after raucous confrontations between the police and protesters resulted in 66 arrests. At least five people needed medical attention, and about 19 businesses sustained damage.

....

Observers put the crowd at Friday's march at 3,000 to 4,000. Speakers urged demonstrators to fight for an array of social issues they felt had been largely ignored in global economic policy.

Urbina later included another numerical estimate, as if "more than 400" anarchists is some impressive figure:

Rows of police officers looked on from the sidewalk, watching a group of more than 400 self-described anarchists clad in black.

— Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.

Share/Bookmark




From The Brody File at CBNNews.com...

Pro-Life Amendments Fail in Senate Finance Committee

Hatch Amendment #C14 Description:

No funds authorized or appropriated under this Mark may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

Nothing in this amendment would preclude an insurance issuer from offering a separate, supplemental policy to cover additional abortions. Such a supplemental policy would be funded solely by supplemental premiums paid for by individuals choosing to purchase the policy.

SENATE VOTE:

Republicans

CHUCK GRASSLEY - yes
ORRIN G. HATCH - yes
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE - no
JON KYL - yes
JIM BUNNING - yes
MIKE CRAPO - yes
PAT ROBERTS - yes
JOHN ENSIGN - yes
MIKE ENZI - yes
JOHN CORNYN - yes

Democrats

MAX BAUCUS - no
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER - no
KENT CONRAD - yes
JEFF BINGAMAN - no
JOHN F. KERRY - no
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN - no
RON WYDEN - no
CHARLES E. SCHUMER - no
DEBBIE STABENOW - no
MARIA CANTWELL - no
BILL NELSON - no
ROBERT MENENDEZ - no
THOMAS CARPER - no

Not Agreed to (10-13)

Hatch Amendment #C13: Non-discrimination on abortion and respect for right of conscience

Description: Non-Discrimination on abortion and respect for rights of conscience

(a) NON DISCRIMINATION.-A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act ( or and amendment made by this Act), may not-

1) subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination, or

2) require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), to subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

(b) DEFINITON.-In this section, the term "health care entity" includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.

(c) ADMINISTRATION.-The Office for Civil Right of the Department of Heath and Human Services is designated to receive complaints of discrimination based on this section, and coordinate the investigation of such complaints.

SENATE VOTE:

Republicans

CHUCK GRASSLEY - yes
ORRIN G. HATCH - yes
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE - no
JON KYL - yes
JIM BUNNING - yes
MIKE CRAPO - yes
PAT ROBERTS - yes
JOHN ENSIGN - yes
MIKE ENZI - yes
JOHN CORNYN - yes

Democrats

MAX BAUCUS - no
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER - no
KENT CONRAD - yes
JEFF BINGAMAN - no
JOHN F. KERRY - no
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN - no
RON WYDEN - no
CHARLES E. SCHUMER - no
DEBBIE STABENOW - no
MARIA CANTWELL - no
BILL NELSON - no
ROBERT MENENDEZ - no
THOMAS CARPER - no

Not Agreed to (10-13)

Share/Bookmark

Update 10/12/2009 March on Big Media pre-events starting tomorrow as web site continues to climb into top 73,000 web sites in the US in only a month

Update 10/05/2009
March on Media 10/17/2009 event web site moves into the top 100,000 web sites in the US similar to the 04/15/2009 Tea Party event web sites.

But first some history of the protests that has led to the march on the media event on 10/17/2009.

First, an estimation of about 1 million showed up all over the nation on 04/15/2009 (See evidence at: Many videos from Tax Tea Parties including extra footage of CNN Chicago Tea Party incident!!! below is one of my favorites.) to protest Big Government on tax day after smaller Tea Party protests began as early as February but for many the sentiments can be traced back to the McCain and Obama supported bailouts of companies back in '08 under Bush.



Then during Big Government's recess many protested Big Government's health care reform and showed up at town hall meetings. See Many videos of TEA Parties moving to townhall meetings and now protesting ObamaCare? or do a search at Values Voter News by typing in "town hall" in the search box for ample documentation.

Then on 09/12/2009 hundreds of thousands traveled to DC to protest Big Government. See video below of crowd size.



Which leads us to the 10/17/2009 event similar to the 04/15/2009 event where in many cities people now are organizing local protests against Big Media which seems to be taking off much like the prior events.

Last week was reported at March on Media 10/17/2009 site makes it into the top 220,000 sites in the US in less than a week. how OperationCanYouHearUsNow.com broke into the top 220,000 sites in the US in just a week of existence. In it's second week of existence OperationCanYouHearUsNow.com has moved up 100,000 sites in the US and is now number 118,032.

Below is copied from post on 09/22/2009 at March on Media 10/17/2009 site makes it into the top 220,000 sites in the US in less than a week.:

"If the tea party web sites were any indication of the possible turn out in April for the Tea Parties which was reported that in "less then 3 three months on Alexa.com Taxdayteaparty.com is in the top 5,000 web sites in the US and Teapartyday.com is in the top 10,000 web sites in the US." which was just under one million strong then the success of a web site introducing a March on the Media event being held on 10/17/2009 may be in the same ranks.

"A new web site set up this Tuesday is calling on those frustrated with liberal media bias to do something about it on 10/17/2009. Rush Limbaugh sparked the idea: "The media [are] no longer reporters. They are repeaters," Limbaugh said. "There have been hundreds and thousands of protests by conservative groups that haven't been covered, and tiny turnouts by the left that are covered."-March on the Media - 10/17/2009

In less than a week Operation Can you hear us now? (March on Media 10/17/2009) has moved quickly into the top 220,000 sites in the US according to Alexa.com. Update 09/25/2009 Site has moved into top 200,000 at 180,551. Update 09/25/2009 Now into the top 150,000 at 143,113. Update 09/28/2009-131,765. Update 09/29/2009 - 118,032."

Why are they marching on the media? Below is a fun video explaining just one of many reasons. For more click on label and Video reporting on the need and recent successes of Grassroots Alternative Media



Values Voter News thought the videos below were applicable plug ins.

Ronald Reagan speech including the infamous words "Government is not the solution to our problem...Government is our problem"



And 1976 Nobel Prize winner on economic, Milton Friedman, has some comments that are applicable here in answering criticism.

Share/Bookmark





Another Elementary school in North Carolina teaches kids to in a sense "praise" Obama...




The below video may be applicable here from: Recent video of tax payer funded public school educators teaching elementary kids to perform a song of praise to Obama. This video now has over 800,000 views in 5 days.

Share/Bookmark

Related: Plans to audit Federal Reserve move forward

Share/Bookmark

Below two articles from MRC.ORG give further evidence for the necessity of a March on Media 10/17/2009 event. See March on Media 10/17/2009 site makes it into the top 220,000 sites in the US in less than a week. which is now in the top 120,000 sites a week later in the US according to Alexa.com.

NY Times Public Editor Admits Paper Slow on ACORN, Staffer to Now Monitor Conservative Media



New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt's latest column tackles the ACORN scandal -- or as Times readers know it: "What ACORN scandal?"

In "Tuning In Too Late," Hoyt criticized the Times for its lack of coverage of the juicy ACORN imbroglio, an omission that has prodded the paper into creating a new semi-position. It's assigned an editor to monitor opinion media and catch stories like this earlier (apparently not a single television at Times headquarters is tuned to Fox News, where they could have caught it quite easily.)

Hoyt summarized the video sting in which ACORN workers at several branches across the country were captured giving advice on child sex trafficking and tax evasion to a gaudy pimp and a hot-pants prostitute (actually conservative activists James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles). The tapes, whose gradual release were masterfully mediated by Andrew Brietbart at his new website BigGovernment.com, resulted in ACORN being cut off from federal funding and losing its ties to the Census Bureau and IRS. Yet the Times took little interest in the scandal and the consequences:

But for days, as more videos were posted and government authorities rushed to distance themselves from Acorn, The Times stood still. Its slow reflexes -- closely following its slow response to a controversy that forced the resignation of Van Jones, a White House adviser -- suggested that it has trouble dealing with stories arising from the polemical world of talk radio, cable television and partisan blogs.

Some stories, lacking facts, never catch fire. But others do, and a newspaper like The Times needs to be alert to them or wind up looking clueless or, worse, partisan itself.

This is quite misleading. The Times already monitors opinion media for story tips. It's just that they only monitor the left side of the blogosphere. Lachlan Markay provided some stark examples at NewsBusters on Sunday:

The Times consistently cites liberal blogs far more than ones on the right, undermining the claim that they missed these two stories because they don't monitor online media. A Nexis search reveals 477 combined mentions of five of the left's top blogs: Huffington Post, Think Progress, Talking Points Memo, Daily Kos, and Media Matters.

But a search for five of the right's top blogs, Hot Air, Pajamas Media, NewsBusters, RedState, and TownHall turns up only 18 combined mentions from the Times.

The left-wing Talking Points Memo, run by Josh Marshall, was recently praised by Executive Editor Bill Keller. It's a favorite source for Times reporters. Liberal columnist Maureen Dowd took its name too literally when she plagiarized it. And the online version of Monday's front-page profile of Elizabeth Cheney links to left-wing media watchdog Media Matters as its source for an unflattering anecdote.

The Times's hesitation to pick up news from conservative media didn't start with ACORN, of course. Before missing the outcry over Obama environmental adviser and 9-11 Truther Van Jones, the paper ignored the affair of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards during the 2008 presidential campaign, until he admitted it in a television interview. Hoyt even criticized the paper for not taking the Edwards affair story seriously in an August 2008 column. Apparently no one listened.

Hoyt quibbled with the paper's delayed first story on ACORN, which ran under the headline, "Conservatives Draw Blood From Acorn, Favored Foe."

The article said that conservatives hoped to weaken the Obama administration by attacking its allies and appointees they viewed as leftist. The conservatives thought they had a "winning formula," the article said, mobilizing people "to dig up dirt," then trumpeting it on talk radio and television....I thought politics was emphasized too much, at the expense of questions about an organization whose employees in city after city participated in outlandish conversations about illegal and immoral activities.

Hoyt's criticism echoes what Times Watch wrote the day the article appeared:

Scott Shane's "Conservatives Draw Blood From Acorn, Favored Foe" hit the high points but overplayed the ideological angle, as the headline hints. There are six conservative labels in the story, not including the headline, and Shane portrayed the scandal in pure political terms, with "the right" as "gleeful" in claiming its "latest scalp," as opposed to expressing outrage over a tax-funded leftist organization with connections to the Census Bureau and IRS (!) encouraging tax evasion and child prostitution.

Hoyt then quoted Managing Editor Jill Abramson pretty much admitting the paper is not in tune with what right-leaning people are thinking, blaming "insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio." Then the big news:

She and Bill Keller, the executive editor, said last week that they would now assign an editor to monitor opinion media and brief them frequently on bubbling controversies. Keller declined to identify the editor, saying he wanted to spare that person "a bombardment of e-mails and excoriation in the blogosphere."

Despite what the critics think, Abramson said the problem was not liberal bias.

Abramson also previously admitted the paper was "a beat behind" in its Van Jones coverage, but blamed the Labor Day weekend and also denied any liberal bias.

— Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.

Times Discovers Abortion Part of Health Care Fight After All

Surprise: After dismissing conservative concern over possible taxpayer-funded abortions under Obama-care as a "peripheral" issue or even a "myth," the Times runs a front-page story headlined "Abortion Fight Adds to Debate On Health Care."

Posted by: Clay Waters
9/29/2009 2:45:40 PM


Tuesday's lead story by David Kirkpatrick, headlined "Abortion Fight Adds to Debate On Health Care," must have come as a surprise to the Times' readership. After all, it has been assured by the paper that the health care bills under consideration by congressional Democrats would not permit taxpayer funded abortions, and that conservatives who suggested otherwise were simply conjuring up another anti-reform myth.

Kirkpatrick wrote:

As if it were not complicated enough, the debate over health care in Congress is becoming a battlefield in the fight over abortion.

Abortion opponents in both the House and the Senate are seeking to block the millions of middle- and lower-income people who might receive federal insurance subsidies to help them buy health coverage from using the money on plans that cover abortion. And the abortion opponents are getting enough support from moderate Democrats that both sides say the outcome is too close to call. Opponents of abortion cite as precedent a 30-year-old ban on the use of taxpayer money to pay for elective abortions.

Abortion-rights supporters say such a restriction would all but eliminate from the marketplace private plans that cover the procedure, pushing women who have such coverage to give it up. Nearly half of those with employer-sponsored health plans now have policies that cover abortion, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The question looms as a test of President Obama’s campaign pledge to support abortion rights but seek middle ground with those who do not. Mr. Obama has promised for months that the health care overhaul would not provide federal money to pay for elective abortions, but White House officials have declined to spell out what he means.

Democratic Congressional leaders say the latest House and Senate health care bills preserve the spirit of the current ban on federal abortion financing by requiring insurers to segregate their public subsidies into separate accounts from individual premiums and co-payments. Insurers could use money only from private sources to pay for abortions.

But opponents say that is not good enough, because only a line on an insurers’ accounting ledger would divide the federal money from the payments for abortions. The subsidies would still help people afford health coverage that included abortion.

In an August 12 article complaining about health care protesters roughly questioning Sen. Arlen Specter at a town hall, reporters Ian Urbina and Katharine Seelye sniffed:

Many seemed concerned about issues that are either not in the health care legislation or are peripheral to the debate in Washington -- abortion, euthanasia, coverage of immigrants, privacy.

Somehow that abortion debate went from "peripheral" to a Times lead story in about six weeks.

And a September 2 story by Seelye sneakily used an Indiana University study to debunk "myths" Republicans and independents believe about health care, including abortion coverage:

Here are the statements that independents believed and disbelieved, with assessments of each statement provided in parentheses by Aaron Carroll, director of the university’s Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research, which helped design the survey with the university’s Center for Bioethics

This was one statement in a bullet point list of arguments that the pro-Obama-care Carroll dismissed as "myth," and faithfully relayed as such by reporter Seelye:

-- taxpayers will be required to pay for abortions (myth)

Share/Bookmark

From The Christian Institute....

Tory: BBC must tackle its 'innate liberal bias'

The BBC should actively seek to redress its “innate liberal bias”, says the Conservatives’ spokesman for culture.

Jeremy Hunt quoted the phrase applied to the BBC by its former political editor Andrew Marr in 2007.

Mr Marr has also described the BBC as “a publicly funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people compared with the population at large”.

The BBC has been frequently accused of a bias against Christians and Christian values.

In June this year, the Church of England challenged the broadcaster over claims it treats Christianity like a ‘freak show’.

In the same month, former Radio 2 host Don Maclean said the BBC was supportive of Islam while taking a consistently negative angle on Christianity.

The broadcaster came under fire recently when it received complaints about a drama that portrayed a British extremist Christian beheading a moderate Muslim.

The offending episode of “Bonekickers” was aired in July last year and sparked renewed accusations of anti-Christian bias at the BBC.

Daily Telegraph writer, Damian Thompson, said: “We are deep into the realms of BBC bias and ignorance here.

“Only a BBC drama series would, to quote the complainant, ‘transfer the practice of terrorist beheadings from Islamist radicals to a fantasised group of fundamentalist Christians’.”

In January the beeb sparked outrage when a BBC One drama portrayed pro-life campaigners as murderous terrorists.

In the same month a BBC presenter, Jeremy Vine, said he believed that Christ is who he said he was, but doesn’t think he would be allowed to say so on air.

He told Reform Magazine that it has become “almost socially unacceptable to say you believe in God”.

Last year the BBC’s Director General, Mark Thompson, admitted his view that Islam should be treated more sensitively than Christianity because Muslims are less integrated and more of a minority group.

In October last year, the conductor of the BBC Philharmonic orchestra spoke of an ‘ignorant’ secular liberal minority in the media seeking to drive religion from the public sphere.

And in 2006 the Archbishop of York said that Christians took “more knocks” in BBC programmes than other faiths.

He added: “They can do to us what they dare not do to the Muslims. We are fair game because they can get away with it.”

Share/Bookmark

From the ACLJ...

Planned Parenthood Fraud Case Moving Forward

As you know, we're engaged in a critically important case against Planned Parenthood - a multi-million dollar fraud case against PP affiliates in California. And, now, we have just filed our reply brief in the case with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

We represent a former employee of the PP affiliate in Los Angeles, who is now a federal whistleblower. The case had been dismissed by a federal district court, but we're asking the appeals court to reinstate the lawsuit.

In the spotlight here is the federal False Claims Act (FCA) - which forbids government contractors from submitting “false or fraudulent” claims for payment. The FCA also authorizes private individuals to bring suit against the offenders to recover the fraudulently obtained funds. The fact is that The False Claims Act provides an important weapon in rectifying illegal runs on taxpayer dollars.

The allegation in this case is that PP affiliates in California illegally marked up the supposed cost of various birth control drugs when seeking government reimbursement, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of overbilling – at taxpayer expense. State audits in both California and Washington State have found PP affiliates guilty of overbilling.

This is a very important case with serious ramifications. We became involved in this case in the appeals process - after a federal district court dismissed the initial case brought by the former PP staffer who charged the PP affiliates with fraudulently overbilling the state and federal governments in the amount of tens of millions of dollars. We believe the federal appeals court should reverse that decision and reinstate the lawsuit.

We have now filed several briefs in the case. Our opening brief was filed in July and it is posted here. Our most recent filing, our reply brief, is posted here. In that brief we counter arguments that the PP affiliates made in their own brief on appeal. In particular, the ACLJ brief takes Planned Parenthood to task for “misrepresenting” the record in the case and for “improperly” trying to inject new materials into the case on appeal.

The fact is that this is a very complicated and highly technical area of the law. There's no way an ordinary citizen, no matter how just the claim or how egregious the fraud, could afford to take on a prominent law firm that's representing the PP affiliates in a complex area of the law like this. We’re very pleased to be involved in this case and provide the high-powered analysis a case like this calls for.

This is a case that is certain to generate a lot of attention and one that will be watched closely.


Posted: 9/28/2009 12:00:00 AM

Share/Bookmark




Update: Schumer offered another public option which failed to 13-10.

Update 09/30/2009 The Heritage Foundation has this concern though:

Morning Bell: Government-Run Health Care by Next Thursday?

The Washington Post front page blares today: “Prospects for Public Option Dim in Senate.” Don’t believe it. Yes, the Senate Finance Committee did vote down two amendments that each would have added a government-run insurance plan to the committee’s health care bill. But two key Democrats who voted against Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s (D-WV) public plan, Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Tom Carper (D-DE), voted for Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) version.

According to an independent analysis of Senate Democrat public statements on the public option, that raises the number of Democrats on record supporting a public option from 47 to 49. Moreover, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), chairmen of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, told the liberal “Bill Press Radio Show” yesterday that Democrats “comfortably” have the remaining votes to reach 51 and pass a public plan once the debate moves to the House floor.

But what about Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus’ (D-MT) claim yesterday that, “No one has been able to show me how we can count up to 60 votes with a public option.” That may be true, but it is also irrelevant. The question is not whether Democrats can muster 60 votes to pass Obamacare; they only need 51 votes to do that. The only time the number 60 will be relevant is when the Senate votes on whether to end debate and vote on the final bill. This is a separate question. We can see Senators from red states like Ben Nelson (D-NE), Blanch Lincoln (D-AR), and Kent Conrad (D-ND) voting against an amendment creating a public option. But voting with Republicans against their party and against their President to support a Republican filibuster? That would take a lot of courage. It would guarantee that these Democrats would face fierce opposition from their leftist bases back home. Just ask the left’s new whip for the public option, Michael Moore. Speaking to women’s groups and unions in Washington, DC, yesterday, Moore warned:

To the Democrats in Congress who don’t quite get it: I want to offer a personal pledge. I – and a lot of other people – have every intention of removing you from Congress in the next election if you stand in the way of health care legislation that the people want. That is not a hollow or idle threat. We will come to your district and we will work against you, first in the primary and, if we have to, in the general election.

Moore is, of course, the perfect spokesman for the public option. He is in Washington promoting his new film “Capitalism: A Love Story” in which Moore argues that “Capitalism is an evil, and you can’t regulate evil.” A more succinct summation of theory behind the public option does not exist. While supporters of the plan, including the White House, insist that the purpose of the public option is to bring “choice and competition” to the health care, nothing could be further from the truth. As Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Anthony Weiner (D-NY) Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein, and Noble Prize winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman have all candidly admitted, the public option is nothing more than a Trojan horse for a single-payer, government-run health care system. Moore even told Rolling Stone magazine this summer:

If a true public option is enacted — and Obama knows this — it will eventually bring about a single payer system, because the profit-making insurance companies won’t be able to compete with a government run plan and make the profits they want to make.

So just how close are we to being inflicted with the Obama/Moore dream of anti-capitalist, competition-free, government-run health care? Closer than many realize. Multiple sources on the Hill have told The Foundry that as early as next week, the Senate could be debating Obamacare. Senate Majority Leader Reid has stated an intention to take the HELP Committee product and merge it with the Senate Finance Committee markup that is expected to be over by this Thursday or Friday. Their plan is to proceed to a House passed non-health care bill to provide a shell of legislation to give Obamacare a ride to the House and then straight to the President’s desk.

Quick Hits:

Share/Bookmark

From The Christian Institute...

Dr advised me to abort my baby, but I refused

A baby boy whose seriously ill mother was told she should abort him is safe and healthy at three-and-a-half months.

While she was pregnant with Shaun, Hollie Quinn was diagnosed with a life-threatening condition and advised to have a termination.

“I was at death’s door – so ill that they had no idea how I had been walking around at all”, she said.

“To save my life I would need steroids and other drugs. I would also need blood transfusions.

“Worse, the doctors said I should have a termination. Being pregnant was putting a further strain on my body.

“And the life-saving drugs were so powerful they were very likely to kill my unborn baby, or make him deformed.

“If I didn’t have a termination, I would miscarry.”

But Hollie refused to have an abortion, and continued to fight her condition, an autoimmune disorder called Goodpasture’s Disease that caused her body to attack its own vital organs.

There were fears that the powerful drugs she was prescribed could kill the baby.

“But as the days went by,” she said, “the scans showed my baby was fine.

“At 20 weeks we found out it was a little boy.

“He looked beautiful on the scan and I began to have more hope, willing him to survive.”

Shaun was born by caesarian at 35 weeks, weighing 3lb 12oz. He was put in a special care cot as a precaution but was allowed home with his mother after ten days.

Hollie said, “it seems that by 16 weeks Shaun’s vital organs had developed enough to be able to withstand all the drugs”.

Hollie is unlikely to be able to have another baby because of the drugs she had to take and her physical weakness.

She said: “Knowing that makes me feel even more fortunate that I didn’t have a termination and I realise how lucky I am to have Shaun.”

Share/Bookmark

Let us start with a prediction from Daniel Hannan in the EU with over 2.5 million YouTube hits since March...



But even before that we saw: Canada's elections has the Conservative Party winning big and then after Daniel Hannan's speech which turned out to be quite prophetice we saw: In the UK and Europe was reported: UK's labour party takes the worst showing since 1918 as conservatives gain ground. YouTube video of Daniel Hannan MEP for one reason why. and then in Japan: First Canada, then Europe now Japan moving from left to right in recent election landslide and now in Germany...

From BigGovernment.com at Pro-Free Market Parties Romp to Victory in Germany:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel won a resounding reelection in today’s balloting in Germany. That was mostly expected. What wasn’t expected was the absolute drubbing suffered by SPD, the labor/left party. Until this election, Merkel’s conservatives were in an uneasy, ‘grand coalition’ with the SPD. Those days are over. Now Merkel’s conservatives will form a government with the pro-free market (libertarian) FPD party. Hmmm…hints of things to come?:

Together with the FDP, Mrs Merkel is expected to push for a new era of deeper economic reforms and tax cuts for Europe’s biggest economy. Mrs Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the FDP benefited from dissatisfaction over spiralling national debt and stagnant income levels.

The CDU retained its position as Germany’s largest party with 33.5 per cent and the Free Democrats jumped to 15 per cent.

The result marked a humiliating blow for Germany’s venerable Social Democratic Party, which took just 22.5 per cent.

Predictions of a tight outcome were confounded by frustrated voters embracing Mrs Merkel’s case for a stronger hand to deal with Germany’s long-term financial problems.

Read the whole thing here, in a non-US newspaper.

Chancellor Merkel’s party support actually dropped slightly from the last election. However, the FDP, the pro-market, libertarianish party almost doubled their support. And, the labor/left collapsed. Totally.

More of that please."

For more must see videos of Daniel Hannan speeches and interviews see: Daniel Hannan video condemns growing power of the EU. and 2.4 million hits on YouTube: video of Daniel Hannan's prophetic speech in the European Parliament and other great conservative lessons on the economy and European Parliament votes 349 to 218 to condemn Lithuania's law on protecting minors from homosexuality, bisexuality and polygamy. and YouTube video of British politician speech in Colorado on 07/03/2009 that has similar sentiments of conservatives in the US.

Share/Bookmark

Boys lacking role models as state replaces fathers

The Government is replacing fathers as single mothers depend on benefits to bring up their children instead, a journalist’s investigation has concluded.

Harriet Sergeant spent nine months exploring the world of Britain’s most disadvantaged youngsters and produced a report on her findings.

In it she contends that single motherhood is encouraged by the promise of benefits and rent-free accommodation.

And, she argues, with the state taking the place of fathers as the family’s main provider, more young men are growing up without a male role model.

As part of the study she interviewed a drug dealer on a Peckham housing estate who has five children by different mothers.

When asked why the women became pregnant by a man they barely knew, he said: “Women get money from the Government; men get eradicated.

“What do you need a man for? The Government has taken our place.”

Sir Norman Bettison, Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, said: “We are talking here about the perverting influence of welfare. The more kids you have, the more money you get.”

A single mother with two children receives around £10,000 in annual benefits and a rent-free house, Harriet Sergeant points out.

Meanwhile, boys growing up without fathers knew they were missing out, her investigation found.

She spoke to a young man who had recently been released from prison.

“If I had a father, I would have got a good hiding and I probably wouldn’t be here now”, he said.

His 17-year-old friend, who is on the police list of top-ten troublemakers in his town, added: “You need a dad for growing up”.

And one boy who did have his father around said: “Everyone will give up on you, but a dad doesn’t because he’s your dad.”

The investigation reported a Prince’s Trust survey which said a third of 14-to-25-year-olds questioned did not have a parent whom they considered a role model.

More than half in the survey said they had joined a gang to acquire a sense of identity, and a quarter said they were in search of someone to look up to.

The Daily Mail investigation also highlighted that the number of male teachers has slumped to its lowest level in at least 20 years and that in primary school, 85 per cent of teachers are female.

It added: “This year, according to the latest research, one in three children who live with a single mother will spend less than six hours a week with a male role model – whether a father figure, relative or teacher.”

Share/Bookmark

New UN Head Says Homosexuality "Totally Unacceptable"

By Hilary White

NEW YORK, September 28, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In an interview prior to his first address, the UN General Assembly's new president said that homosexuality is "not really acceptable."

Ali Abdussalam Treki, a veteran diplomat from Libya, was responding to a journalist's question about his position on the UN's "Declaration for the Universal Decriminalisation of Homosexuality" at a press conference prior to the opening of the 64th session of the General Assembly.

"It is a very thorny argument," he said. "As a Muslim, I do not agree with it. My opinion is not in favor of this matter at all.

"I believe it is not acceptable for most of the world, and it is totally unacceptable for our tradition and religion. And there are some countries that allow that, thinking it is a kind of democracy ... I think it is not," he added.

The response of the international homosexualist movement was swift, with one group saying that Treki's comment was contrary to the principles of the founding Charter of the United Nations. The International Lesbian & Gay Association (ILGA), one of the leading international homosexualist lobby groups, this week issued a statement demanding an explanation from Treki for his "failure to consider the protection of the life and safety of lesbians, gay men, trans, intersex and bisexual people all over the world."

ILGA continued: "The worrying and serious implications of this attitude, coming from the new head of an institution which is supposed to regard human rights - all human rights - as the most sacred value, cannot be overstated."

The UN declaration was opposed by a group of Arab countries and was signed only by a total of 66 of the UN's 192 member states, including all 27 European Union members as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries. Until the election of Barack Obama as president, the US was the only western country that had refused to sign.

Late last year, the Vatican's representative at the UN, Archbishop Celestino Migliore, told a French news agency that those opposed to the declaration were concerned that it would place even more pressure on countries to adopt or expand same-sex "marriage" or civil unions and would generally fuel the movement to normalize homosexuality.

"States which do not recognize same-sex unions as 'matrimony' will be pilloried and made an object of pressure," he said.

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Obama Administration to Sign UN Declaration to "Decriminalize Homosexuality"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09031804.html

Share/Bookmark

Wash. college agrees to end discrimination against pro-life students

ADF attorneys secure court order, Spokane Falls Community College agrees to amend policies after threatening to expel students
Monday, September 28, 2009

SPOKANE, Wash.
— Community Colleges of Spokane and Spokane Falls Community College officials agreed to a court order Thursday that settles a lawsuit filed after they attempted to unconstitutionally silence the pro-life message of a student group. SFCC officials threatened student Beth Sheeran, represented by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, and other members of a Christian student group with disciplinary measures, including expulsion, if they chose to hold a pro-life event on campus because the information they were sharing with other students was deemed “discriminatory” and did not include a pro-abortion viewpoint.


The agreed-upon order eliminates or revises the problematic policies and programs that led to the unconstitutional treatment of the student organization.

“Christian pro-life students shouldn’t be silenced, discriminated against, and threatened with expulsion for attempting to share their beliefs on public college campuses,” said Litigation Staff Counsel Heather Gebelin Hacker with the ADF Center for Academic Freedom. “We are pleased that the college officials have agreed to change their unconstitutional policies and programs so that pro-life students can voice their viewpoints, just like any other group of students on campus.”

An official rejected Sheeran’s timely request to hold a pro-life event on campus on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade that involved flier distribution and materials posted in a display case in the student center. The official said college policy prohibited one-sided events and expressive displays on campus and that the pro-life display would not be allowed because it did not include any pro-abortion viewpoints.

Another administrator later told Sheeran that the group could have the event as long as they voted on it, but after they did so, the club’s faculty advisor told the students that their flier was “offensive” and that their event violated the district’s “Stop the Hate” policy--as well as state law. The advisor said the students could face expulsion if they “offended” anyone. Sheeran and the club never held the event.

The order issued by the court requires the college district to revise its policies and procedures, requires revision of certain Washington state administrative codes, and modifies the “Stop the Hate” program’s unconstitutional provisions.

ADF attorneys filed the lawsuit, Sheeran v. Shea, against college officials in March, and Hacker presented oral argument in a hearing at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington in April. ADF-allied attorney Jeffrey Smith of The Smith Law Group in Spokane served as local counsel in the case.

Share/Bookmark

Related: Watch 2 hour debate as Democrats reject Republican amendment to post legislative language of healthcare bill on web site 72 hours before voting on it.

Rasmussen reports shows that Health Care reform is not doing any better under the Senate's Baucus bill then the House bill thus far:

"Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% are opposed to the plan.

Senior citizens are less supportive of the plan than younger voters. In the latest survey, just 33% of seniors favor the plan while 59% are opposed. The intensity gap among seniors is significant. Only 16% of the over-65 crowd Strongly Favors the legislation while 46% are Strongly Opposed."

Date

Approve

Disapprove

Sep 24-25

41%

56%

Sep 16-17

43%

56%

Sep 15-16

44%

53%

Sep 14-15

42%

55%

Sep 13-14

45%

52%

Sep 12-13

51%

46%

Sep 11-12

48%

48%

Sep 10-11

47%

49%

Sep 9-10

46%

51%

Sept 8-9

44%

53%

Aug 25-26

43%

53%

Aug 9-10

42%

53%

Jul 26-27

47%

49%

Jul 20-21

44%

53%

Jul 10-11

46%

49%

Jun 27-28

50%

45%

Related: Only ABC reports on Obama Administration's effort to suppress criticism that Medicare benefit to seniors will be cut

Video: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security equals $43 trillion dollar deficit and ObamaCare will only add more.



Share/Bookmark



Obama and many Democrat leaders claim ObamaCare will be paid for in part by cutting wasteful spending and fraud in Medicare. First, this tells you how wasteful government ran programs are. Secondly, are we going to create more waste with a new program without government proving itself to be able to cut waste in the first place? Would the government approve of a free market business doing this? If not then why is government doing it at the expense of tax payers money? Thirdly, could an argument be made that this will create more waste and fraud at tax payers expense? Or is this just more "misinformation"? Lastly, if we can save that much in Medicare waste and fraud then maybe we ought to be looking at paying off the debt and deficit of Big Government.

After all it was Big Government that created the mess we are in anyways in the eyes of many and justifiably so. This is another reason why many are not buying into a government solution to health care at all. See for why millions of jobs have been lost and why our economy is in the shape it is in along with our obvious and glaring moral failure to acknowledge the God of our forefathers at Cartoons and charts exposing economic consequences for America's straying from our "In God we trust" roots

Video: Fix Our $43 Trillion Entitlement Problem First-From The Heritage Foundation

"Although the United States does have a huge deficit problem we can’t afford not to fix, the Obama administration is focusing on the wrong aspect in trying to create a new federal health program. Congress needs to address spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — all programs that have existed for decades — that is primed to explode.

Long-term excess costs for Social Security and Medicare alone: $43 trillion. When added to the national debt, that is about $184,000 for every man, woman and child in America. We should focus on reforming existing federal health programs so they’ll be sustainable for generations to come. Here’s what Heritage’s Alison Fraser has to say."

Share/Bookmark