Thursday November 11, 2010
By Seana Cranston, J.D.
NEW YORK, November 11 (C-FAM) - The world’s leading abortion provider is continuing to promote a graphic brochure advocating casual sex among youth. According to International Planned Parenthood Federation, the brochure called “Healthy, Happy and Hot” has become their most popular publication.
Aimed at young people with HIV, the brochure contains sexually explicit language and promotes casual sex with multiple partners, as well as oral, anal, and homosexual sex.
“Some people like to have aggressive sex,” says the brochure. “There is no right or wrong way to have sex.” It encourages young people who might have sex after drinking or using drugs to “plan ahead by bringing condoms.” Another section suggests readers visit family planning clinics for help in preventing or aborting unplanned pregnancies.
The publication encourages youth to keep their sexual activity secret from their parents, as well as visits to family planning clinics. “You should find out whether there are any centers near to you where you can go without needing the permission of your parents or guardians.”
The brochure criticizes countries with laws requiring disclosure of HIV status to sexual partners. Such laws violate the rights of people living with HIV, the pamphlet argues.
Planned Parenthood also distributed the brochure in August at the World Youth Conference in Leon, Mexico.
Originally published in January of this year, “Healthy, Happy and Hot” is now available in a Russian translation. Russia has the second-highest rate of HIV in Eastern Europe and Eurasia, according to USAID.
The Regional President of Planned Parenthood in Europe is Dr. Elena Dmitrieva, a Russian national who also directs the Healthy Russia Foundation. Funded by the United States through USAID, the foundation sponsors an ongoing health project there. Healthy Russia 2020 promotes HIV/AIDS prevention and contraception among youth and other vulnerable populations in Russia. Its self-proclaimed healthy lifestyles program for youth targets people aged 13-19.
Nearly $77 million in US taxpayer dollars went to programs in Russia in 2008, according to USAID’s website. Part of this $77 million enabled family planning and reproductive health messages to reach more than 25,000 Russians.
This comes despite Russia suffering from a demographic crisis. The UN predicts that Russia's population will fall by 23 million over the next 40 years. In response, President Vladimir Putin recently offered $11,000 to reward families who have at least two children.
As C-Fam’s Friday Fax reported earlier this year, a Mormon mother spotted the brochure at a closed-door, girls-only meeting sponsored by Girl Scouts USA at UN headquarters in New York. Since then, Girl Scout chapters around the United States have been roiled in a debate about the connections between Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood. Girl Scouts USA refuses to denounce the brochure and denies the brochure was in the UN room where the young girls met.
This article reprinted with permission from www.c-fam.org
URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/nov/10111106.html
Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Comments by Nat Hentoff concerning Terri Schiavo
Friday, March 28, 2008
Nat Hentoff on Obama and Schiavo
Nat Hentoff is a familiar name for those of us in the battles against euthanasia, assisted suicide, and infanticide.
The comments Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama made during the February 26th debate with Hillary Clinton caught Hentoff's attention as well as ours.
Writing in Jewish World Review, Hentoff writes:
In none of the endless presidential candidates' debates has there been a meaningful discussion of the rights of disabled Americans. However, in the Feb. 26 debate in Cleveland, Barack Obama casually and ignorantly revealed his misunderstanding of the basic issue in the highly visible and still-resonating official death sentence of a disabled woman, Terri Schiavo. I have repeatedly called her death the result of "the longest public execution in American history."
In his first sentence, Hentoff has identified a silence that has escaped others in the media. No presidential candidate, of either party, has discussed the issues facing Americans with disabilities. Both Clinton and Obama have detailed positions on disability issues on their campaign sites, but it's not something they talk about in debates or on the stump. I'm not sure if John McCain has any positions on disability issues on his own campaign site, but his silence on our issues is as thorough as his Democrat counterparts.
The omission of disability issues in the presidential debates isn't his main point though:
When moderator Tim Russert asked Hillary Clinton and Obama if "there are any words or votes that you'd like to take back ... in your careers in public service," Obama answered that in his first year in the Senate, he joined an agreement "that allowed Congress to interject itself (in the Schiavo case) into the decision-making process of the families."
Obama added: 'I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better."
When he was a professor of constitutional law, Obama probably instructed his students to research and know all the facts of a case. The reason Congress asked
the federal courts to review the Schiavo case was that the 41-year-old woman about to be dehydrated and starved to death was breathing normally on her own, was not terminal, and there was medical evidence that she was responsive, not in a persistent vegetative state.
One of the leading congressional advocates of judicial review was staunchly liberal Democratic Tom Harkin of Iowa, because he is deeply informed about disability rights. By contrast, in all of this inflamed controversy, the mainstream media performed miserably, copying each other's errors instead of doing their own investigations of what Terri's wishes actually were. Consequently, most Americans did not know that 29 major national disability-rights organizations filed legal briefs and lobbied Congress to understand that this was not a right-to-die case, but about the right to continue living.
A caveat here - when Hentoff talks about "mainstream media" I hope he is including Fox News Channel along with MSNBC and other "mainstream" sources. Fox News was every bit as guilty as other networks in terms of framing the fight for Terri Schiavo's life as a "culture wars" controversy as the other networks were. This wasn't "liberal" bias - the right and the left worked in tandem on this - and in a way that kept the perspectives and involvement of disability advocates out of the public discourse.
Read the rest of the article here.
And for more info on safeguards recommended by disability advocates for people under guardianship in terms of treatment withdrawal, check out the STATEMENT OF COMMON PRINCIPLES ON LIFE-SUSTAINING CARE AND TREATMENT OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES and the list of organizational endorsements for the Statement. --Stephen Drake
Posted by Not Dead Yet at 2:25 PM 0 comments
Filed in: life-ending decisions, media coverage, politics, schiavo
Nat Hentoff on Obama and Schiavo
Nat Hentoff is a familiar name for those of us in the battles against euthanasia, assisted suicide, and infanticide.
The comments Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama made during the February 26th debate with Hillary Clinton caught Hentoff's attention as well as ours.
Writing in Jewish World Review, Hentoff writes:
In none of the endless presidential candidates' debates has there been a meaningful discussion of the rights of disabled Americans. However, in the Feb. 26 debate in Cleveland, Barack Obama casually and ignorantly revealed his misunderstanding of the basic issue in the highly visible and still-resonating official death sentence of a disabled woman, Terri Schiavo. I have repeatedly called her death the result of "the longest public execution in American history."
In his first sentence, Hentoff has identified a silence that has escaped others in the media. No presidential candidate, of either party, has discussed the issues facing Americans with disabilities. Both Clinton and Obama have detailed positions on disability issues on their campaign sites, but it's not something they talk about in debates or on the stump. I'm not sure if John McCain has any positions on disability issues on his own campaign site, but his silence on our issues is as thorough as his Democrat counterparts.
The omission of disability issues in the presidential debates isn't his main point though:
When moderator Tim Russert asked Hillary Clinton and Obama if "there are any words or votes that you'd like to take back ... in your careers in public service," Obama answered that in his first year in the Senate, he joined an agreement "that allowed Congress to interject itself (in the Schiavo case) into the decision-making process of the families."
Obama added: 'I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better."
When he was a professor of constitutional law, Obama probably instructed his students to research and know all the facts of a case. The reason Congress asked
the federal courts to review the Schiavo case was that the 41-year-old woman about to be dehydrated and starved to death was breathing normally on her own, was not terminal, and there was medical evidence that she was responsive, not in a persistent vegetative state.
One of the leading congressional advocates of judicial review was staunchly liberal Democratic Tom Harkin of Iowa, because he is deeply informed about disability rights. By contrast, in all of this inflamed controversy, the mainstream media performed miserably, copying each other's errors instead of doing their own investigations of what Terri's wishes actually were. Consequently, most Americans did not know that 29 major national disability-rights organizations filed legal briefs and lobbied Congress to understand that this was not a right-to-die case, but about the right to continue living.
A caveat here - when Hentoff talks about "mainstream media" I hope he is including Fox News Channel along with MSNBC and other "mainstream" sources. Fox News was every bit as guilty as other networks in terms of framing the fight for Terri Schiavo's life as a "culture wars" controversy as the other networks were. This wasn't "liberal" bias - the right and the left worked in tandem on this - and in a way that kept the perspectives and involvement of disability advocates out of the public discourse.
Read the rest of the article here.
And for more info on safeguards recommended by disability advocates for people under guardianship in terms of treatment withdrawal, check out the STATEMENT OF COMMON PRINCIPLES ON LIFE-SUSTAINING CARE AND TREATMENT OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES and the list of organizational endorsements for the Statement. --Stephen Drake
Posted by Not Dead Yet at 2:25 PM 0 comments
Filed in: life-ending decisions, media coverage, politics, schiavo
Friday, November 5, 2010
Race for the Truth About the Susan G. Komen Foundation
Is Abortion and Hormonal Contraception a Prescription for Breast Cancer?
November 4, 2010
This article originally ran on Zenit.org on October 29, 2010
By Jenn Giroux
Everywhere I looked this month I saw a pink ribbon. It was on my dry cleaning bag, grocery bag, coffee cup, mail catalogs, receipts, billboards ... it goes on and on. Don't get me wrong. I love the color pink, and breast cancer prevention and finding a cure is critical to women today. However, I also love the truth.
That is why October 2010 is a good time to take Breast Cancer Awareness Month to a whole new level with some facts which can lead to both the physical and spiritual health of women in America and across the world.
We live in the world of media messaging where the one with the most money and the loudest message wins the day. What is the "Race for the Cure"? Why are we not being told the truth about the real risks and prevention for breast cancer? According to the SEER data at the National Cancer Institute, there has been a 400% increase in noninvasive -- or "in situ" (in the same place) -- breast cancer in pre-menopausal women since 1975. How do abortion, hormone replacement therapy, and hormonal contraception factor into the equation?
For years, abortion, hormonal replacement therapy and hormonal contraception have been largely ignored by most of the medical community and the media in general as significant risk factors for breast cancer. However, studies have consistently concluded that breast cancer risk increases as a result of these three factors.
Researchers in Iran have published results of a new study showing that women who have had an abortion face a 193% increased risk of breast cancer. This has to do with the interruption of breast tissue development during pregnancy. It is important to note that this (and other studies like it) have nothing to do with a person's belief in abortion. It has everything to do with the scientifically undeniable development and growth of breast tissue within a woman's body. There are many other studies that have been published as well that confirm that abortion presents increased risk to women for breast cancer, and that confirm that carrying a baby to full term provides a natural protection to the mother if the pregnancy is not unnaturally interrupted.
For years, doctors have been prescribing hormone replacement therapy for women who experience hot flashes and periods of sweating in menopause. The widespread belief was that these hormones would not only reduce a woman's risk for heart disease but also keep her "youthful, sexy, and healthy." This week the New York Times reported that studies have now confirmed that taking these hormones not only increases breast cancer risk, but "also make it more likely that the cancer will be advanced and deadly" (New York Times, Oct. 19, 2010).
This revelation, finally being recognized by the mainstream medical community and media, makes our final topic on hormonal contraception downright frightening.
Obstetricians and gynecologists across the country freely encourage long-term use of hormonal contraception such as "the Pill," the intrauterine device (IUD) Mirena, NuvaRing, Yaz, Yasmin, and all forms of emergency contraception without giving adequate attention to the short- and long-term side effects. Pediatricians have also joined in on this by encouraging mothers to place their young daughters on "the Pill" to help with acne or to relieve monthly menstrual cramps. Recently, a college student shared with me that inside her dorm, cell phones go off in the early morning hours as a reminder to the girls to take their birth control pills. This was at a Catholic college.
The number of young women on "the Pill" is alarming. Have these girls been told that "the Pill" has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency on Research for Cancer, a research arm of the World Health Organization? Are women in general being informed that any form of hormonal (estrogen-progestin combination) birth control (including "the Pill," the patch, Depo-Provera, Norplant, Ortho Vera Patch, or any others on the market) are actually increasing risk for breast, cervical, and liver cancer?
The sad reality is that any woman who takes a hormonal contraceptive for four years prior to her first full-term pregnancy increases her risk for breast cancer by 52%. It is worth noting that this same research arm of the World Health Organization also places "the Pill" in the same category with asbestos and cigarettes.
The difference is the dose
So, you may ask, what is the difference between the hormones that are given to women during menopause, which cause deadly breast cancer, and the hormones that are given to young women in the form of "the Pill"? The answer is shocking. The hormones in the drugs are the same. The only difference is in the dose that is given to the younger women and girls. It is necessary to give a much higher dose than that given in hormone replacement therapy because younger women have active, healthy ovaries. Does this give better context to the 400% increase in "in situ" breast cancer in pre-menopausal women since 1975?
In order to silence the public discussion of the harms of contraception we have often been told that we are pushing our "Catholic" views on women. This has effectively kept many health care providers and pro-life groups silent on this issue. Do you know what has nothing to do with being Catholic? Experiencing breast cancer in your 30s, having a stroke in college, or having an undetected and sudden blood clot that results in permanent health damage or death are life-threatening side effects that visit women of all faiths.
Women deserve to know the truth. They have been failed by physicians in not being warned of the physical damage that they are doing to their bodies, and they have been failed by their priests in not being warned of the spiritual damage that they are doing to their souls.
The New York Times article on Oct. 19 published information by "The Journal of the American Medical Association" that is a real breakthrough and victory for women's health. The exposure of this important medical information further reveals the outrage against Komen affiliates who contributed a total of $3.3 million to Planned Parenthood programs from 2004-2009.
Komen spokesman John Hammarley told The Daily Caller that in 2009, affliates gave Planned Parenthood $731,303.
This was money from trustful donors who were unaware that they, indeed, gave to a cause working against the cure of breast cancer. Clearly, both abortion and hormonal contraception, a huge source of Planned Parenthood's income, are contributing risk factors for breast cancer.
October 2010 is the time to recognize the seamless pink ribbon that connects breast cancer with abortion, hormonal contraception and hormone replacement therapy. It is only then that we can get on with true prevention and, God willing, finish the race for the truth, which will then pave the path for the cure.
* * *
Jenn Giroux is the executive director of HLI America, a program of Human Life International. She is a registered nurse, wife, and mother of nine. She and her husband, Dan, live with their family in Cincinnati, Ohio. For more information go to hliamerica.org.
November 4, 2010
This article originally ran on Zenit.org on October 29, 2010
By Jenn Giroux
Everywhere I looked this month I saw a pink ribbon. It was on my dry cleaning bag, grocery bag, coffee cup, mail catalogs, receipts, billboards ... it goes on and on. Don't get me wrong. I love the color pink, and breast cancer prevention and finding a cure is critical to women today. However, I also love the truth.
That is why October 2010 is a good time to take Breast Cancer Awareness Month to a whole new level with some facts which can lead to both the physical and spiritual health of women in America and across the world.
We live in the world of media messaging where the one with the most money and the loudest message wins the day. What is the "Race for the Cure"? Why are we not being told the truth about the real risks and prevention for breast cancer? According to the SEER data at the National Cancer Institute, there has been a 400% increase in noninvasive -- or "in situ" (in the same place) -- breast cancer in pre-menopausal women since 1975. How do abortion, hormone replacement therapy, and hormonal contraception factor into the equation?
For years, abortion, hormonal replacement therapy and hormonal contraception have been largely ignored by most of the medical community and the media in general as significant risk factors for breast cancer. However, studies have consistently concluded that breast cancer risk increases as a result of these three factors.
Researchers in Iran have published results of a new study showing that women who have had an abortion face a 193% increased risk of breast cancer. This has to do with the interruption of breast tissue development during pregnancy. It is important to note that this (and other studies like it) have nothing to do with a person's belief in abortion. It has everything to do with the scientifically undeniable development and growth of breast tissue within a woman's body. There are many other studies that have been published as well that confirm that abortion presents increased risk to women for breast cancer, and that confirm that carrying a baby to full term provides a natural protection to the mother if the pregnancy is not unnaturally interrupted.
For years, doctors have been prescribing hormone replacement therapy for women who experience hot flashes and periods of sweating in menopause. The widespread belief was that these hormones would not only reduce a woman's risk for heart disease but also keep her "youthful, sexy, and healthy." This week the New York Times reported that studies have now confirmed that taking these hormones not only increases breast cancer risk, but "also make it more likely that the cancer will be advanced and deadly" (New York Times, Oct. 19, 2010).
This revelation, finally being recognized by the mainstream medical community and media, makes our final topic on hormonal contraception downright frightening.
Obstetricians and gynecologists across the country freely encourage long-term use of hormonal contraception such as "the Pill," the intrauterine device (IUD) Mirena, NuvaRing, Yaz, Yasmin, and all forms of emergency contraception without giving adequate attention to the short- and long-term side effects. Pediatricians have also joined in on this by encouraging mothers to place their young daughters on "the Pill" to help with acne or to relieve monthly menstrual cramps. Recently, a college student shared with me that inside her dorm, cell phones go off in the early morning hours as a reminder to the girls to take their birth control pills. This was at a Catholic college.
The number of young women on "the Pill" is alarming. Have these girls been told that "the Pill" has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency on Research for Cancer, a research arm of the World Health Organization? Are women in general being informed that any form of hormonal (estrogen-progestin combination) birth control (including "the Pill," the patch, Depo-Provera, Norplant, Ortho Vera Patch, or any others on the market) are actually increasing risk for breast, cervical, and liver cancer?
The sad reality is that any woman who takes a hormonal contraceptive for four years prior to her first full-term pregnancy increases her risk for breast cancer by 52%. It is worth noting that this same research arm of the World Health Organization also places "the Pill" in the same category with asbestos and cigarettes.
The difference is the dose
So, you may ask, what is the difference between the hormones that are given to women during menopause, which cause deadly breast cancer, and the hormones that are given to young women in the form of "the Pill"? The answer is shocking. The hormones in the drugs are the same. The only difference is in the dose that is given to the younger women and girls. It is necessary to give a much higher dose than that given in hormone replacement therapy because younger women have active, healthy ovaries. Does this give better context to the 400% increase in "in situ" breast cancer in pre-menopausal women since 1975?
In order to silence the public discussion of the harms of contraception we have often been told that we are pushing our "Catholic" views on women. This has effectively kept many health care providers and pro-life groups silent on this issue. Do you know what has nothing to do with being Catholic? Experiencing breast cancer in your 30s, having a stroke in college, or having an undetected and sudden blood clot that results in permanent health damage or death are life-threatening side effects that visit women of all faiths.
Women deserve to know the truth. They have been failed by physicians in not being warned of the physical damage that they are doing to their bodies, and they have been failed by their priests in not being warned of the spiritual damage that they are doing to their souls.
The New York Times article on Oct. 19 published information by "The Journal of the American Medical Association" that is a real breakthrough and victory for women's health. The exposure of this important medical information further reveals the outrage against Komen affiliates who contributed a total of $3.3 million to Planned Parenthood programs from 2004-2009.
Komen spokesman John Hammarley told The Daily Caller that in 2009, affliates gave Planned Parenthood $731,303.
This was money from trustful donors who were unaware that they, indeed, gave to a cause working against the cure of breast cancer. Clearly, both abortion and hormonal contraception, a huge source of Planned Parenthood's income, are contributing risk factors for breast cancer.
October 2010 is the time to recognize the seamless pink ribbon that connects breast cancer with abortion, hormonal contraception and hormone replacement therapy. It is only then that we can get on with true prevention and, God willing, finish the race for the truth, which will then pave the path for the cure.
* * *
Jenn Giroux is the executive director of HLI America, a program of Human Life International. She is a registered nurse, wife, and mother of nine. She and her husband, Dan, live with their family in Cincinnati, Ohio. For more information go to hliamerica.org.
Friday, October 15, 2010
JUST TAKE A PILL FOR THAT by Judie Brown ALL
It has always been my contention that nobody should take medicine without first reading all of the information and understanding that there is a possibility of unpleasant, or even dangerous, side effects. Of course the opportunity for those deleterious consequences becomes more plausible when you are taking more than one medication. As one wise older gentleman stated, it is always imperative to find out for yourself how one drug interacts with others.
But even if you are taking only a single medical prescription, it is still an absolute necessity to understand your own medical history, be able to share it with your doctor and then make an informed decision about whatever the medicine is that has been prescribed. Most doctors, if quizzed, will eventually give you all the information you need.
Having said that, one has to ask the logical question: What should make birth control pills any different?
Well, there are a couple of things that make that assortment of drugs unique. First, they are part of the medicine chest preferred by those who promote sexual promiscuity and abortion. These folks believe that pregnancy is a disease and the pill is the antidote. Such so-called professionals will go to any length to deny the side effects, bury or discredit the studies and generally deceive the public.
We know from the clinical information published by various pharmaceutical companies that the pill has three modes of action and that one of those is abortion. Abortion is caused by the pill thinning the uterine wall which, in turn, prevents the preborn child from implanting. Thus, the baby dies.
We know that those who market the pill and those who prescribe it or recommend it are people who argue that pregnancy does not begin at the biological beginning of a preborn human individual’s life. They have revised scientific fact to suit their political agenda even though, in truth, no words can actually change biology.
When it was brought to the attention of the National Cancer Institute that the birth control pill can contribute to an increased risk of breast cancer, the Institute denied that this was the case—even going so far as to ignore clinical studies that proved the connection.
In a speech earlier this month, Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., FACS said that it was after much research that a connection was made between hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and breast cancer. She pointed out, incredibly, that this information was known for over 20 years but never explained to women. “But when that knowledge was put in the hands of women who needed and considered it, many acted upon it and breast cancer rates fell.” She then asked her audience, “What do you think will happen when women learn that these same hormones are in oral contraceptives but in much higher doses? Will half of the 75% of premenopausal women in the United States who take hormonal contraceptives stop these hormones like their mothers did after menopause?”
Chris Kahlenborn, M.D., has studied extensively the relationship between breast cancer and the birth control pill. According to Kahlenborn, “If a woman takes the oral contraceptive pill before her FFTP [first full term pregnancy], she suffers a 40% increased risk of developing breast cancer compared to women who do not take OCPs [oral contraceptive pills]. If she takes OCPs for 4 years or more prior to her FFTP, she may have an even higher risk.”
So why isn’t this front page news, particularly during Breast Cancer Awareness Month?
There is no legitimate answer to this question. The fact is that, because the birth control pill is part of Planned Parenthood’s bag of tricks, the topic is off limits. Planned Parenthood’s goal is not to foster respect for the bodies of its clients, but rather to rake in the money by marketing all manner of perversion.
The solution: women must stand up and say they will no longer be human guinea pigs for the culture of death! They must refuse to “just take a pill for that.” After all, pregnancy is natural; dying of cancer or killing one’s baby is tragic.
Oct-15-2010
But even if you are taking only a single medical prescription, it is still an absolute necessity to understand your own medical history, be able to share it with your doctor and then make an informed decision about whatever the medicine is that has been prescribed. Most doctors, if quizzed, will eventually give you all the information you need.
Having said that, one has to ask the logical question: What should make birth control pills any different?
Well, there are a couple of things that make that assortment of drugs unique. First, they are part of the medicine chest preferred by those who promote sexual promiscuity and abortion. These folks believe that pregnancy is a disease and the pill is the antidote. Such so-called professionals will go to any length to deny the side effects, bury or discredit the studies and generally deceive the public.
We know from the clinical information published by various pharmaceutical companies that the pill has three modes of action and that one of those is abortion. Abortion is caused by the pill thinning the uterine wall which, in turn, prevents the preborn child from implanting. Thus, the baby dies.
We know that those who market the pill and those who prescribe it or recommend it are people who argue that pregnancy does not begin at the biological beginning of a preborn human individual’s life. They have revised scientific fact to suit their political agenda even though, in truth, no words can actually change biology.
When it was brought to the attention of the National Cancer Institute that the birth control pill can contribute to an increased risk of breast cancer, the Institute denied that this was the case—even going so far as to ignore clinical studies that proved the connection.
In a speech earlier this month, Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., FACS said that it was after much research that a connection was made between hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and breast cancer. She pointed out, incredibly, that this information was known for over 20 years but never explained to women. “But when that knowledge was put in the hands of women who needed and considered it, many acted upon it and breast cancer rates fell.” She then asked her audience, “What do you think will happen when women learn that these same hormones are in oral contraceptives but in much higher doses? Will half of the 75% of premenopausal women in the United States who take hormonal contraceptives stop these hormones like their mothers did after menopause?”
Chris Kahlenborn, M.D., has studied extensively the relationship between breast cancer and the birth control pill. According to Kahlenborn, “If a woman takes the oral contraceptive pill before her FFTP [first full term pregnancy], she suffers a 40% increased risk of developing breast cancer compared to women who do not take OCPs [oral contraceptive pills]. If she takes OCPs for 4 years or more prior to her FFTP, she may have an even higher risk.”
So why isn’t this front page news, particularly during Breast Cancer Awareness Month?
There is no legitimate answer to this question. The fact is that, because the birth control pill is part of Planned Parenthood’s bag of tricks, the topic is off limits. Planned Parenthood’s goal is not to foster respect for the bodies of its clients, but rather to rake in the money by marketing all manner of perversion.
The solution: women must stand up and say they will no longer be human guinea pigs for the culture of death! They must refuse to “just take a pill for that.” After all, pregnancy is natural; dying of cancer or killing one’s baby is tragic.
Oct-15-2010
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Suffering Children Should Be Smothered
UK Pundit to Shocked TV Host: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/uk-pundit-to-shocked-tv-host-suffering-children-should-be-smothered/
Suffering Children Should Be Smothered
Posted on October 4, 2010 at 8:17am by
Scott Baker
Advice columnists in Britain are known as “agony aunts” (or uncles). Virginia Ironside is one. Her latest bit of advice has drawn outraged reaction from television viewers who caught her comments on the BBC yesterday. She appeared during a segment called, “Can abortion be a kindness?” Here’s the Daily Mail account of her comments:
Miss Ironside said: ‘If a baby’s going to be born severely disabled or totally unwanted, surely an abortion is the act of a loving mother.’
She added: ‘If I were the mother of a suffering child – I mean a deeply suffering child – I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face… If it was a child I really loved, who was in agony, I think any good mother would.’
Disability rights advocates called her pro-eugenics approach “despicable.” Even the host seemed stunned:
Programme host Susanna Reid appeared visibly shocked by her comments during the live debate, gasping: ‘That’s a pretty horrifying thing to say, that you would put a pillow over a suffering child.’
In the past, Ironside has said she believes doctors should not try to save the lives of “very premature babies.”
Comments (371)
Comments Page 2 →Page 1 of 12
JGP
Posted on October 4, 2010 at 8:25am
How could you be a “loving mother” and at the same time not want your child? The woman has no soul.
MSG
Posted on October 4, 2010 at 9:07am
It’s the mentality of the progressive agenda,,, just look at the violence against children and others in this video:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100056510/go-green-or-well-kill-your-kids-says-richard-curtis-eco-propaganda-shocker/
TruthTalker
Posted on October 4, 2010 at 9:50am
Apparently her own mother disagrees because this woman must have been suffering from mental illness for her entire life.
Report Post » jnword
Posted on October 4, 2010 at 9:51am
This woman most likely had gotten a Rhodes Scholarship… the crimal Cecil Rhodes wiped out Africa for his boss Rothschilds! Clinton another brainwased stooge had a Rhodes Scholarship, like 12 memeber of this current White House..we best wake up soon!
Report Post » CultureWarriors
Posted on October 4, 2010 at 9:54am
This is why I believe many so called liberals are just profoundly ignorant. They hear the compassion that progressives spin but aren’t smart enough to see through that spin. The liberal progressive elites actually believe that abortion is about not letting the poor reproduce while at the same time branding it as a women’s rights issue. They are truly evil and bereft of character. This born out of an overwhelming sense of insecurity. A liberal goes through life thinking deep down inside they aren’t good enough, so how could anyone else be able to take care of themselves? Like I’ve said before, liberalism is a mental disorder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UtmTALMkU4
You don’t measure compassion by many get a hand handout, you measure it by how many don’t need a handout!
Report Post » theninthplanet
Posted on October 4, 2010 at 10:04am
Ironside said aloud what all other eugenics advocates believe. It’s OK though – we’re only talking about the physically and mentally deformed though, not the Jews. Unfortunately these people are unable to make the connection between eugenics and the holocaust.
Report Post » cdavehere
Posted on October 4, 2010 at 10:05am
I think we all need to stop here and deeply think about this. There has to be a point when prolonging life becomes cruel. What if it were you in agony? I find it hard to agree with this woman, but am I being selfish.
Report Post » Satai Delenn
Posted on October 4, 2010 at 10:27am
I can not begin to fathom how someone could be so cold hearted. I watched a movie recently called “Follow the Stars Home” amazing and far closer to how “any good Mother” would feel.
http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/249254/Follow-the-Stars-Home/overview
Being a Mother is not an easy job, it is one of love and patience. Being the Mother of a disabled child is one of the most difficult jobs in the world. We should all remember that life is worth it. Children what ever package they come in are gifts from our Fahter in Heaven. He shares them with us for a short time and we are blessed to be part of the lives He gives us.
Report Post » /
Suffering Children Should Be Smothered
Posted on October 4, 2010 at 8:17am by
Scott Baker
Advice columnists in Britain are known as “agony aunts” (or uncles). Virginia Ironside is one. Her latest bit of advice has drawn outraged reaction from television viewers who caught her comments on the BBC yesterday. She appeared during a segment called, “Can abortion be a kindness?” Here’s the Daily Mail account of her comments:
Miss Ironside said: ‘If a baby’s going to be born severely disabled or totally unwanted, surely an abortion is the act of a loving mother.’
She added: ‘If I were the mother of a suffering child – I mean a deeply suffering child – I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face… If it was a child I really loved, who was in agony, I think any good mother would.’
Disability rights advocates called her pro-eugenics approach “despicable.” Even the host seemed stunned:
Programme host Susanna Reid appeared visibly shocked by her comments during the live debate, gasping: ‘That’s a pretty horrifying thing to say, that you would put a pillow over a suffering child.’
In the past, Ironside has said she believes doctors should not try to save the lives of “very premature babies.”
Comments (371)
Comments Page 2 →Page 1 of 12
JGP
Posted on October 4, 2010 at 8:25am
How could you be a “loving mother” and at the same time not want your child? The woman has no soul.
MSG
Posted on October 4, 2010 at 9:07am
It’s the mentality of the progressive agenda,,, just look at the violence against children and others in this video:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100056510/go-green-or-well-kill-your-kids-says-richard-curtis-eco-propaganda-shocker/
TruthTalker
Posted on October 4, 2010 at 9:50am
Apparently her own mother disagrees because this woman must have been suffering from mental illness for her entire life.
Report Post » jnword
Posted on October 4, 2010 at 9:51am
This woman most likely had gotten a Rhodes Scholarship… the crimal Cecil Rhodes wiped out Africa for his boss Rothschilds! Clinton another brainwased stooge had a Rhodes Scholarship, like 12 memeber of this current White House..we best wake up soon!
Report Post » CultureWarriors
Posted on October 4, 2010 at 9:54am
This is why I believe many so called liberals are just profoundly ignorant. They hear the compassion that progressives spin but aren’t smart enough to see through that spin. The liberal progressive elites actually believe that abortion is about not letting the poor reproduce while at the same time branding it as a women’s rights issue. They are truly evil and bereft of character. This born out of an overwhelming sense of insecurity. A liberal goes through life thinking deep down inside they aren’t good enough, so how could anyone else be able to take care of themselves? Like I’ve said before, liberalism is a mental disorder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UtmTALMkU4
You don’t measure compassion by many get a hand handout, you measure it by how many don’t need a handout!
Report Post » theninthplanet
Posted on October 4, 2010 at 10:04am
Ironside said aloud what all other eugenics advocates believe. It’s OK though – we’re only talking about the physically and mentally deformed though, not the Jews. Unfortunately these people are unable to make the connection between eugenics and the holocaust.
Report Post » cdavehere
Posted on October 4, 2010 at 10:05am
I think we all need to stop here and deeply think about this. There has to be a point when prolonging life becomes cruel. What if it were you in agony? I find it hard to agree with this woman, but am I being selfish.
Report Post » Satai Delenn
Posted on October 4, 2010 at 10:27am
I can not begin to fathom how someone could be so cold hearted. I watched a movie recently called “Follow the Stars Home” amazing and far closer to how “any good Mother” would feel.
http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/249254/Follow-the-Stars-Home/overview
Being a Mother is not an easy job, it is one of love and patience. Being the Mother of a disabled child is one of the most difficult jobs in the world. We should all remember that life is worth it. Children what ever package they come in are gifts from our Fahter in Heaven. He shares them with us for a short time and we are blessed to be part of the lives He gives us.
Report Post » /
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Update on Urban Outfitters catalog .
From Sandy Sasso
THINK I TOLD YOU ABOUT THIS - HERE'S THE OUTCOME.
Last week's Wednesday STOPP Report brought you the distressing news that Urban Outfitters was selling Planned Parenthood "Proper Attire" condoms on its website, and advertising them to young people as a "safe bet."
The condoms were in the "Toys and Novelties" section of the web catalog.
Only a day after we released the story and asked parents to contact Urban Outfitters and complain, the condoms were pulled from the website.
This protest is a case in point: Retailers should take notice that, if they choose to partner with Planned Parenthood or sell any of Planned Parenthood's products or services, there is a vast network of parents across the country who are ready and willing to protect their children from Planned Parenthood.
These parents want their teens to respect their sexuality and remain sexually abstinent until marriage, and want to do business with companies that support them in encouraging modesty and sexual abstinence until marriage. Parents want to know that they can allow their teens to browse a youth-oriented retailer's website without being exposed to Planned Parenthood's sexually oriented merchandise.
Thanks to all the parents and consumers who made contact with Urban Outfitters, and to the folks at Urban Outfitters who acted swiftly to stop the condom sales.
THINK I TOLD YOU ABOUT THIS - HERE'S THE OUTCOME.
Last week's Wednesday STOPP Report brought you the distressing news that Urban Outfitters was selling Planned Parenthood "Proper Attire" condoms on its website, and advertising them to young people as a "safe bet."
The condoms were in the "Toys and Novelties" section of the web catalog.
Only a day after we released the story and asked parents to contact Urban Outfitters and complain, the condoms were pulled from the website.
This protest is a case in point: Retailers should take notice that, if they choose to partner with Planned Parenthood or sell any of Planned Parenthood's products or services, there is a vast network of parents across the country who are ready and willing to protect their children from Planned Parenthood.
These parents want their teens to respect their sexuality and remain sexually abstinent until marriage, and want to do business with companies that support them in encouraging modesty and sexual abstinence until marriage. Parents want to know that they can allow their teens to browse a youth-oriented retailer's website without being exposed to Planned Parenthood's sexually oriented merchandise.
Thanks to all the parents and consumers who made contact with Urban Outfitters, and to the folks at Urban Outfitters who acted swiftly to stop the condom sales.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
MAAFA
I don't know how many have purchased or viewed this revealing documentary about Black Genocide and how Planned Parenthood has targeted minorities throughout their "eugenics" oriented elimination of Negro and latino unborn babies.
You can do a search for MAAFA and find the website to order a copy. I did, received mine and viewed it and now plan to show it to my fellow parishioners.
It would be better if pastors would purchase a copy and show it in their school halls.
Bill
You can do a search for MAAFA and find the website to order a copy. I did, received mine and viewed it and now plan to show it to my fellow parishioners.
It would be better if pastors would purchase a copy and show it in their school halls.
Bill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
