My Wife Has Got Twins Inside Her

My wife had her first ultrasound this week and we found out the she is having twins. I was praying for triplets, but God knows what we can handle so He said yes to two. Two little heart beats, hard to deny that there is life there is it not?

Obama Supports UN Treaty That Is Pro-Abortion

Coming from Lifenews:

"New United Nation's Treaty Obama Favors Targets Disabled Unborn With Abortion


President Barack Obama’s much-anticipated pro-United Nations treaty campaign has been launched with a White House ceremony declaring support for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

But despite the title and language of the treaty, including the affirmation of a “right to life,” it is doubtful whether the treaty would protect the rights of unborn children with disabilities, such as those with Down syndrome.

Through its affirmation of “sexual and reproductive health"-a phrase that clearly means access to abortion and abortion rights-the treaty also supports abortion, even though it has been estimated that over 90 percent of pregnancies in the United States with a diagnosis of Down syndrome are terminated through abortion.

This controversial aspect of the seemingly non-controversial treaty has been completely ignored in the many stories hailing Obama’s endorsement of the “legally binding” measure. However, it explains why a pro-abortion administration would support such a measure. This treaty, for the first time in history, establishes an international right to abortion.

On the left, the George Soros-funded Human Rights Watch called it “the first international human rights treaty signed by the United States in nearly a decade” and identified “several other important outstanding treaties” that should be signed and/or ratified, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

But the disability rights treaty also has implications for the debate over Obama’s plan to create a government-sponsored health care plan that could ration health care to the elderly.

Veteran journalist Patricia E. Bauer, who writes a blog on disability issues, says that more than 50 million people in the U.S. have disabilities, “a number that is growing rapidly as the population ages,” and that “Experts say disability will soon affect the lives of most Americans.”

Rather than have U.S. officials continue to decide how to deal with these matters, this treaty sets up an international committee to decide whether the U.S. complies with its provisions and whether the U.S. needs to pass more laws to protect the rights of the disabled. It takes decisions away from the U.S. federal and state governments, even though the U.S. passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 19 years ago.

This U.N.-sponsored “Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)” describes itself as “the body of independent experts which monitors implementation of the Convention by the States Parties.”

One of the members of this committee is Jia Yang, Vice President of the China Association of the Blind. Her government, to say the least, has a perverted notion of “human rights” and has even interpreted the women’s rights or CEDAW treaty as allowing forced abortions.

At a White House ceremony last Friday, Obama said that the ADA “showed the world our full commitment to the rights of people with disabilities-and now we have an opportunity to live up to that commitment...Disability rights aren't just civil rights to be enforced here at home; they're universal rights to be recognized and promoted around the world.” He called it “the first new human rights convention of the 21st century.”

“This extraordinary treaty calls on all nations to guarantee rights like those afforded under the ADA,” Obama added. He did not explain, however, how Senate ratification of this controversial measure would affect other nations such as China, especially when some of its provisions are so controversial and subject to different interpretations. His silence indicates that the Obama Administration, like China, will use the document to push abortion rights on the rest of the world.

Obama went on to say that he had instructed his U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to formally sign the treaty at the United Nations in New York “and I hope that the Senate can give swift consideration and approval to the Convention once I submit it for their advice and consent.”

But some of the apparent worthwhile provisions, such as the right to life, food, water, and health care without discrimination, may conflict with the “end-of-life” provisions in the Democrats’ health care plan, officially titled the “America’s Health Choices Act,” which is currently stalled in Congress. The growing fear under “Obamacare” is that seniors, as well as people with disabilities, will be encouraged to forgo medical care to save money.

The treaty’s “right to life” Article 10 provision would seem to outlaw not only abortion but using abortion to terminate unborn children with disabilities. The treaty affirms that “every human being has the inherent right to life.” However, Communist China insists that the right to life applies only to those people “who have been born and are now living on this earth” in order to justify its population control and forced abortion programs. This view is shared by the Obama Administration and most European socialist nations.

The treaty’s endorsement in Article 25 of “sexual and reproductive health” has been the subject of much controversy over the years.

Jeanne Head, the U.N. representative of the National Right to Life Committee, says this is the first time that pro-abortion language has been included in any “hard law U.N. document” which is binding on those nations which sign and ratify it. As such, ratification would help establish abortion as a fundamental human right not only globally but in the U.S.

At the time of adoption of the document by the U.N. General Assembly, the Vatican declared that “...we opposed the inclusion of such a phrase in this article, because in some countries reproductive health services include abortion, thus denying the inherent right to life of every human being, affirmed by Article 10 of the Convention. It is surely tragic that, wherever fetal defect is a precondition for offering or employing abortion, the same Convention created to protect persons with disabilities from all discrimination in the exercise of their rights, may be used to deny the very basic right to life of disabled unborn persons.”

Hence, in the name of protecting people with disabilities, the treaty would in fact authorize their destruction..."

Pro-Abortion Health Care Bill Has Been Put Off For Now

Being reported from Lifenews:

"In a move that gives pro-life advocates more time to organize, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday that the Senate will not vote on a health care restructuring bill until September. The pro-life community is concerned the bill could lead to massive taxpayer funding of abortion and coverage mandates.

Despite a nationally televised press conference featuring pro-abortion President Barack Obama pleading for a vote before the August recess, Reid says the Senate will wait.

“It’s a complex, difficult issue,” Reid said. “I think it’s better to have a product that is one based on quality and thoughtfulness rather than pushing something through.”

He said members of the Senate Finance Committee would approve the bill, that will be combined with one the Senate HELP Committee already approved, without pro-life amendments to limit abortion funding and coverage.

However, the debate has been so contentious that the panel may not approve the bill in time.

"The decision was made to give them more time and I don't think it's unreasonable," he said of the efforts by Republicans and Finance chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, to work on some compromise language.

Reid appeared to admit that growing opposition to the government-run health care plan and its abortion component is hampering his effort to find votes. His move will put pressure on pro-abortion House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to back down from her insistent pledge to move a health care bill before the traditional August recess.

Pelosi told reporters that the House could work into the August recess to pass a bill.

"I'm not afraid of August. It's a month," Pelosi said. "What I am interested in is the sooner the better to pass [the bill.] We will take the bill to the floor when it is ready and when it is ready we will have the votes to pass it."

That comment comes as a top pro-life Democrat, Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, says he has enough votes to disrupt the vote on the bill or the rules allowing debate on it if it does not include language specifically excluding abortion funding and coverage.

Reid's decision upset key abortion stalwarts like Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat who blasted Baucus' panel saying, "The Finance Committee keeps dragging their feet and dragging their feet and dragging their feet. It's time for them to fish or cut bait."

Baucus said today that he hopes his panel will debate the bill, which could include numerous pro-life amendments, on the week of August 3.

At the same time, nine Democrats in the Senate have drafted a letter urging Baucus to wait and work on drafting a better bill.

When the Senate HELP committee adopted its version of the health care bill, the Senate panel voted to include abortions.

The panel's vote came after all of the committee's Democrats, minus Sen. Bob Casey, defeated four separate amendments to make the bill abortion neutral.

The panel defeated an amendment from Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming to remove the "abortion mandate" from the health care bill and another from Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah to remove the abortion subsidies.

The committee also rejected an amendment from Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma to protect state laws limiting abortions and abortion funding from being nullified by federal law under the health care bill and a second that would protect the conscience rights of health care workers.

"The Senate committee's action in rejecting four pro-life amendments is just one more proof that the Democratic health-care bills currently under consideration represent the biggest pro-abortion power grab since Roe v. Wade," Douglas Johnson of National Right to Life told LifeNews.com at the time.

"These bills contain provisions that will result in mandates that virtually all health plans pay for abortion and that virtually all health networks establish abortion providers. They will provide federal funding for abortion on demand, and nullify state laws regulating abortion," he continued."

This is welcomed news but the fight to stop this Administration's pro-abortion agenda is by no means over.

Infanticide And Eugenics, What Is Next On Obama's Agenda?

There is a troubling trend emerging in the psyche of President Obama. When he thinks no one cares or no one will find out, he either tolerates or propagates profound evil. Remember, as a state Senator he was so consistent with his pro-abortion absolutism that he tolerated infanticide. Now we have President Obama trying to "cleanse" the eugenic past of the man he wants as Science Czar. This seems to be more about political expediency then any true change in one's beliefs and values. God help us to endure what is to come.

More Deception On Finding "Common Ground" On Abortion

If Liberals, Democrats, and President were really serious about reducing the number of abortions in America, then they would not cover it in their Socialized health care bill. Liberals may talk about finding "common ground" on abortion but every action they are taking will increase the number of abortions in this country. When they use the euphemism of "reproductive health" instead of abortion, they are up to something and it looks like they will try and deceive the American people about their true intentions.

"On Thursday, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee approved adding a provision to the health care bill that would require abortion groups to be included in any health insurance network created by the bill, according to Family Research Council.

"It's ironic that Senator Mikulski (D-MD) and the committee Democrats would consider taxpayer-funded abortions to be a health care benefit since the baby gets no health care benefit from abortion," said FRC president Tony Perkins. "President Obama and the Democrat leadership claim they want to 'reduce' abortion, but you don't reduce abortion by funding it."

The lawmakers have avoided specifically mentioning "abortion" in the legislation and have instead used terms such as family planning and reproductive health care. But on Thursday during a HELP meeting, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) pressed Mikulski about the language in the amendment..."

President Obama and his Liberal followers are pro-abortion absolutists. They are not even personally opposed to abortion. No Christian can support such wickedness.

Gun Pulled On Pro-Life Advocate In Arizona

I think a time may be coming where it will not matter how peaceful we assert our pro-life convictions, we will suffer for them. A recent example of this comes from Arizona where a gun was pulled out on someone handing out pro-life literature.

"Offering brochures on pro-life alternatives to abortion may appear a safe enough act, but for one Arizona sidewalk counselor, the message of "no thanks" instead came through a drawn handgun allegedly held by a man determined that his girlfriend would get an abortion.

Local Phoenix station 3TV reported that a pro-life woman was offering literature on abortion alternatives to a man who had taken his girlfriend to the Planned Parenthood facility near Seventh and Campbell avenues, when suddenly the man pulled out a pistol, pointed the weapon at the woman for a few moments, and then drove away.

Lt. Larry T. Jacobs stated that Phoenix police were able to track the man down through the license plate number written down by the side-walk counselor, and arrest him.

The incident follows just a week after a man in Chico, California, had been arrested for allegedly attempting to run down an abortion protestor with his SUV near the local Planned Parenthood facility. The Chico Enterprise Record reports that Matthew Haver, 40, had become enraged with veteran pro-life advocate James Cantfield, 69, after Haver's two children sitting in the back of the vehicle pointed at Cantfield's sign and asked their father to explain the sign's prominent image of an aborted baby.

Police later arrested Haver at his home; he was later admitted to the hospital for an unexplained medical condition. As of Friday authorities had not decided whether to charge Haver with a crime.

However the minimal attention given to the acts of violence in the mainstream media has prompted pro-life advocates to point out the disparity in coverage of pro-abortion and anti-abortion violence.

"I think this proves all pro-aborts entering [Planned Parenthoods] are prone to violence against postborns as well as preborns and should be placed on Janet Napolitano's domestic terrorist watch list," stated pro-life advocate Jill Stanek on her blog, dryly noting the double standard applied to pro-life advocates.

Stanek was recently accused on national television of inciting the murder of abortionists by MSNBC host Keith Olbermann and subsequently received death threats.

Stanek also pointed out that the lackluster coverage of the incident omitted important information, such as that this particular Planned Parenthood had been exposed along with another Phoenix Planned Parenthood about four months ago as willing to cover up statutory rape by undercover pro-life journalist Lila Rose.

Rose's documented exposé on the abortion clinic's willingness to violate mandatory reporting laws for sexual abuse of minors and provide clandestine abortions provoked the state attorney general to order an investigation."

It would not surprise if we soon hear about the murder of someone who was peacefully expressing his or her pro-life convictions.

Obama's "Common Ground" On Abortion Is A Joke

Ask yourself this question. If President Obama and his Administration were serious about reducing the number of abortions, then why would they want abortions covered as part of their health care bill? Answer: they are not truly concerned about reducing the number of abortions, only reducing the level of opposition to President Obama's radical pro-abortion policies. Even feminists are crying foul at the measly 19 pro-life Democrats who are trying to stop abortion from being covered in the upcoming health care legislation.

"Action alerts from reproductive rights organizations have shared the information that 19 anti-choice Democrats are trying to keep abortion coverage out of health care reform, putting politics over women's health. An attack on reproductive health services from within the Democratic party is a powerful move that could keep millions of women from accessing important medical care.

Politicians work for the voters. It is important to elect officials who voice support for our issues, make sure they legislate the way we want and hold them accountable if they do not. So I want to share the names of the 19 Democrats who sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi urging her to exclude abortion coverage from health care reform:

Reps. Dan Boren (D-OK); Bart Stupak (D-MI); Colin Peterson (D-MN); Tim Holden (D-PA); Travis Childers (D-MS); Lincoln Davis (D-TN); Heath Shuler (D-NC) Solomon Ortiz (D-TX); Mike McIntyre (D-NC); Jerry Costello (D-IL); Gene Taylor (D-MS); James Oberstar (D-MN); Bobby Bright (D-AL); Steve Driehaus (D-OH); Marcy Kaptur (D-OH); Charlie Melancon (D-LA); John Murtha (D-PA); Paul Kanjorski (D-PA); and Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-PA).

You can read the full letter here .

If you live or vote in any of these Representative's districts you have someone to organize against and vote out of office next election cycle. What good is electing a Democrat if they use their position to legislate against women's health and rights?"

I cannot say this enough, but there is no real fundamental difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion.

Colorado Tries For Another Personhood Amendment

HT:One News Now:

"Two Colorado organizations have launched another petition drive to put a personhood amendment on the 2010 ballot.

Colorado Right to Life and Personhood Colorado are joining forces to gather the signatures for the 2010 Colorado Personhood Initiative. Right to Life spokeswoman Leslie Hanks says they are energized for the campaign.

"People are really beginning to see that the God-given right to life of the preborn child is something exciting to fight for," she explains, "and we've really stood idly by for too long, allowing horrible human rights abuses to go unchallenged in so many ways in this country."

voter registration register to voteIn 2008, Colorado's Personhood Amendment garnered less than 30 percent of the vote. Hanks was asked why a major campaign is being launched again so soon after the defeat.

"With women's suffrage, they took about a 12-year hiatus," she notes, "and when they came back, they were further behind than when they first started -- so we don't want to let that happen. And we know that the civil rights movement didn't sit down and say we're not going to fight any longer because of one election shortfall."

If the petition drive is successful, the measure will be on the 2010 ballot. Pro-lifers in Montana have started a similar campaign."