"Duluth police arrested a 25-year-old woman Tuesday after she allegedly brandished a knife and threatened two anti-
abortion demonstrators outside the Building for Women, 32 E. First St.
The incident occurred at 7:47 a.m., according to demonstrators, who said the suspect was on her way into the building and exchanged words with them before pulling a knife. The suspect reportedly held the knife to the neck of one demonstrator and told her to stop speaking. When the second demonstrator reportedly went to help the first, the suspect allegedly threatened her with the knife as well.
Neither demonstrator was injured, and the suspect reportedly entered the building.
Duluth Police arrested the suspect inside and said they found a knife in her purse. She was taken into custody and sent to the St. Louis County Jail, where she is being held pending charges of second-degree assault..."
The violence committed by someone claiming to be pro-life is clearly an exception to the rule, for if someone is truly pro-life they will not kill to make their point. The violence committed by pro-abortion absolutists, however, is entirely consistent with their world view since they use violence to solve the "problem" of an unwanted baby.
This is a great example of how we need to slice through the rhetoric of the pro-choice crowd. The first thing we need to realize and argue is that they are not really pro-choice but pro-abortion. The latest example of this comes from Baltimore where they are forcing pro-life Crisis Pregnancy Centers to inform people that they do not provide abortion information.
"While the mayor was in court Monday, City Council was back at City Hall making history. The council made a landmark decision concerning pregnancy centers, a decision that could impact cities across the country.
Andrea Fujii explains why some call this new law harassment.
Just three councilmembers voted "no" to the limited pregnancy center bill. It requires all pregnancy centers that do not offer abortion information to post signs in English and Spanish to that effect.
If the mayor signs the legislation, they'd be required to put up a sign in the waiting room making it clear they don't offer the service.
For weeks, the centers and the Catholic Church have called the bill harassment.
"It's aimed at one particular group of people, that is mostly volunteer, non-profit groups --most of them are not Catholic-- who are seeking to help women bring their babies to term. That should not be a crime. That should not be suspect," said Archbishop Edwin O'Brien.
"We make it very clear up front that we don't perform them, nor do we refer for them. And we also won't tell them where to go to get one," said Carol Clews, Center for Pregnancy Concerns.
Supporters of this legislation say it's about truth in advertising for women in Baltimore. But those with pro-life groups say this is specifically to give a bad name to centers that don't support abortion.
"The intent of that is to put pregnancy centers out of business," said Jeff Meister, Maryland Right to Life. "I hate to use the words `out of business,' because they're charities; they're not a business."
Planned Parenthood has advocated the bill, citing nationwide research of women getting censored information at these centers..."
Since they consider this a matter about facts and how they fit into their world view, then any objection to that threatens their reality. This could be used to silence pro-life clinics across the country. They must feel emboldened since abortion could be declared a health care right if ObamaCare is signed into law.
President Obama's true intentions have become known after he has come out in favor of removing the Stupak Amendment.
"During an interview with Fox News, President Barack Obama again condemned the Stupak amendment added to the House health care bill to stop abortion funding. Meanwhile, the Obama administration says the president supports the new Senate health care bill that contains massive abortion subsidies.
Before it voted for its version of the government-run health care bill, the House added the Stupak amendment on a lopsided bipartisan vote to prevent abortion funding in the public option and affordability credits.
The new comments are the second time Obama has said he either wants the Stupak amendment removed from the bill or
Obama is making what even left-leaning mainstream media factcheck sites are calling a false argument by saying the Stupak amendment goes too far in preventing women from getting abortions paid for under their own insurance plans.
"There is a balance to be achieved that is consistent with the Hyde Amendment," Obama said.
"I believe in the basic idea that federal dollars shouldn't pay for abortions. But I also think we shouldn't restrict women's choices, so I think there's some negotiations going on, not just on the Democratic side, but I think among people of good will on both sides, to see if we can arrive at something that meets that criteria," he continued. "And I'm confident we can do that."
Asked if the Stupak amendment provides that so-called balance he supposedly seeks, Obama told Fox News: "Not yet."
Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, gave LifeNews.com his response.
"It looks like President Obama will do everything he can to keep that one senator from tearing down the wall between taxpayers and the bloody business of abortion," he said of Stupak's efforts..."
Maybe the tide is finally turning on the public's denial about what abortion is. Or maybe people are being forced to reckon with how technology has given us a window into the development of the unborn and can no longer live in the Dark Ages of pro-abortion absolutism. The pro-abortion crowd must be worried that even a CNN poll reveals a majority of Americans do not want federal funds going to abortion.
"The new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released today shows 61 percent oppose taxpayer funding of abortions while just 37 percent are supportive.
The CNN poll goes further and finds that a majority of Americans, by a 51 to 45 percent margin, believe women should be required to use their own money to pay for abortions even if they have private health insurance and no government money is involved. They did not think health insurance should pay for abortions.
CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said that the poll results show "for most Americans, potential restrictions on abortion may not be a dealbreaker" in supporting the health care bill.
The CNN survey has important implications for Congress as the Senate begins debating a bill that will likely fund abortions and as pro-abortion President Barack Obama threatens to yank the abortion funding ban from the House bill.
The poll also asked a vague question about when Americans support or oppose abortions.
The question, "Do you think abortion should be legal in most circumstances or only a few circumstances?" doesn't lend itself to any constructive analysis because it does not spell out what circumstances constitute "most" or "a few." Other polls breaking down when women have abortions find about 55 percent of Americans oppose 98 percent of all abortions.
In the new CNN survey, 26 percent said abortions should be legal under any circumstances, 23 percent said abortions should be illegal under any circumstances and 50 percent said they should only be legal under certain circumstances.
If those certain circumstances are defined as the very rare cases of rape or incest or when the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy, then 73 percent of Americans oppose 98 percent of the 1.2 million abortions that take place every year in the United States.
A second CNN question validates that contention.
It found 63 percent of Americans say abortion should be illegal in all cases or only in a few cases while just 36 percent say abortion should be legal in most cases or in all cases.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted November 13-15, with 1,014 adult Americans questioned by telephone."
It is completely absurd that your daughter can get an abortion without your knowledge, but she cannot protest abortion with your knowledge.
"CAMDEN, N.J. - A New Jersey high school student claims in a federal lawsuit that administrators violated her religious and free-speech rights by prohibiting her participation in a silent abortion protest.
The girl, identified in court papers as C.H., says she asked Bridgeton High School's principal last month for permission to join in the Pro Life Day of Silent Solidarity on Oct. 20.
She planned to remain silent, except when called on in class. She also wanted to wear an armband with the word "life" on it and distribute anti-abortion pamphlets.
School Superintendent H. Victor Gilson says the armband would have violated the school's dress code, and the district doesn't allow students to pass out literature on campus.
Her lawsuit was filed Friday by a lawyer hired by the Alliance Defense Fund in Scottsdale, Ariz."
Democrats want to put Planned Parenthood offices at your child's school and let an underage girl get birth control and even am abortion without your knowledge. They are attacking the family at all stages now.
"Top Obama advisor David Axelrod on Sunday confirmed what pro-life advocates already suspected would happen. He said President Barack Obama will work with congressional Democrats to remove the abortion funding ban the House approved in its version of the government-run health care bill.
Axelrod says that, because the Stupak amendment allegedly goes beyond the status quo under the Hyde amendment (which bans abortion funding under Medicaid), Obama will make sure the amendment is yanked during the conference committee.
That's the part of the legislative process that will occur if and when the Senate approves its own health care bill, which will likely start debate with abortion funding.
"The president has said repeatedly, and he said in his speech to Congress, that he doesn't believe that this bill should change the status quo as it relates to the issue of abortion," Axelrod said today on CNN's State of the Union program.
"This shouldn't be a debate about abortion. And he's going to work with Senate and the House to try and ensure that at the end of the day, the status quo is not changed," he added. "I believe that there are discussions ongoing to how to adjust it accordingly."
Axelrod said that an agreement with ruling Democrats in Congress to remove the ban on taxpayer funding of abortions "can and will be worked through before it reaches his desk."
Axelrod's comments come after Obama's own remarks which made it appear he would favor removing or weakening the Stupak amendment..."
First the video and then some arguments against abortion.
Notice how early the heart is beating, within weeks of conception. I would venture to say that not many abortions occur before the unborn baby's heart has started beating. So if one takes a deliberate action that stops a heart from beating, is that not murder? If the same thing was done to a newborn, is that not murder? If the same thing was done to a mentally handicapped baby, is that not murder? If the same thing was done to an elderly woman, is that not murder? The intentional action that leads to stopping of a heart beat cannot but be murder.
Just because the unborn happen to be located and temporarily dependent on the woman that the unborn baby does not have intrinsic value. A newborn baby is also equally dependent on it's mother only the location has changed. The dependence of an individual and that individual's location is not a foundational factor in determining one's value or humanity. If so, then we could equally justify infanticide and the the murder of the sick, the elderly and the handicapped. Sadly, many use a perverse notion of "compassion" to kill the unborn handicapped.
We must also think of personhood, those qualities essential to our humanity, as non-degreed. This means that one cannot be more or less human. One's humanity or personhood is immediately present after the moment of conception. There is no new biological information added throughout the unborn baby's development, through it's birth, life and death as an adult. To justify the murder of the unborn relies on a purely arbitrary and power based view of what it means to have value or to be a person, and such arguments must be applied to the newborn, the child, and the adult.
These arguments are grounded in the truth that God has a special concern for the fatherless and the unborn epitomize the unwanted.
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you..." Jeremiah 1:5
"My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!" Psalm 139:15-17
Even Jesus Himself demonstrated a loving concern for the newborn and the child.
"Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch them; but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to Him and said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.” Luke 18:15-17
We honor Jesus by seeking to defend the most helpless class of humanity the world has ever know. To align oneself with someone who is pro-choice is to disobey Jesus.
I have been greatly affirmed in my call to stand for the unborn after reading Adopted For Life. There is a facebook page that has been created to further this mission. Please join the campaign and invite your friends to so as well.
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." James 1:27
See how the the unborn have been devalued and assaulted in this country by checking more blogs on abortion here.
Not only are those who claim to be pro-choice really pro-abortion, they also will not tolerate the pro-life view being recognized in public. Sacramento City College's student leaders, Steve Macias and Monica Guzman, may loose their positions for not censoring a pro-life groups display on campus.
"Sacramento City College recently celebrated Constitution Day, an annual celebration of the U.S. Constitution and free speech. The Genocide Awareness Project (GAP), a pro-life organization, requested and was granted a display space at the event. Steve Macias, 19-year-old Associated Student Government president, and Monica Guzman, student affairs commissioner, now risk losing their positions for refusing to kick the pro-life group off campus.
Macias explains the GAP had given a proposal a week prior to being granted the space. The governing body voted unanimously to allow GAP to have a presence on campus. Two days into the event, several pro-abortion groups began protesting the GAP display. That same day, the administration pulled Macias out of class and told him to force GAP to remove its display and leave campus. Macias refused, insisting that GAP had a right to have a presence on campus.
Both Macias and Guzman now face a recall led by several atheist and pro-abortion groups. It is a process in which both could lose their positions of leadership..."
It will be a while before the final version of ObamaCare is voted on again by the House of Representative. Pro-abortion Democrats are expressing confidence that abortion will be covered in the final legislation.
It will be a tragedy if those who voted for the Supak Amendment vote for the final legislation if it contains coverage for abortion. It also confirm that they are not really pro-life.
An expansive view of what an orphan is ought to include the unborn as well. Christian families need to step up and lead the way in adopting orphans throughout the world and by pleading with women in crisis pregnancies to give their unwanted child to them. Orphan Sunday is a good way to get the discussion going in your churches and with your friends. Imagine what a national campaign to adopt unborn babies not wanted by their mothers could do?
I admit that I am a bit surprised that the Stupak Amendment to strip abortion funding in ObamaCare passed, but ALLAHPUNDIT at Hot Air I think realizes what will happen.
"Update: The vote on the amendment is 236/190 as I write this, which is bad news. Not only is there no guarantee that the amendment will survive the conference committee with the Senate (or a Supreme Court challenge, natch), but this gives pro-life Blue Dogs the cover they need to vote for the final bill. It’s going to pass. Sigh..."
And over at Gateway Pundit there is agreement about this as well.
"More… Betsy added this:
The Stupak amendment is cover for the blue dogs. Somehow the dems will have funding for abortion no matter what they try to tell us.
Agreed."
We have to remember that nearly every Democrat in Congress, including President Obama, is a pro-abortion absolutist. This means that Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats will get abortion coverage in their somehow. The last place to kill this monstrosity is the Senate.
I am watching to see of the claim by some 40 Democrats to be pro-life is believable. I posted earlier that such a thing might be a myth. Now it appears that Stupak and the other "pro-life" Democrats are getting their vote to remove abortion funding in ObamaCare.
"House Democratic leaders will allow an up-or-down vote on an amendment blocking any money in its healthcare overhaul from funding abortions, risking the votes of members who support abortion rights.
Anti-abortion Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) had told a bleary-eyed Rules committee panel that a deal struck earlier in the day to move forward on the issue was off.
“There was some compromise language from different proposals that we thought would be satisfactory, our understanding was that we had an agreement. Two hours later it was not an agreement,” Stupak said as the clock neared 1 a.m. Saturday.
Stupak, flanked by a bipartisan coterie of abortion opponents, argued for consideration of their amendment that explicitiy prohibits federal funding of abortions under the Democrats' healthcare bill before the Speaker's select committee.
Liberals on the committee threatened to vote against the final healthcare bill if it included Stupak’s language, warning that it would be a return to the days of back-alley abortions..."
Allowing this vote may be to call the bluff of these "pro-life Democrats". At the end of the day if the amendment to remove abortion funding fails and these 40 some Democrats still vote for ObamaCare and enshrine abortion as a health care right, then they are not pro-life.
I really do not want a Democrat to be the next Governor of California, but if Meg Whitman is a pro-abortion absolutist, then I may not vote for a Governor in 2010. When Feminists For Choice praise Whitman for her views on abortion, that sends red flags up all over the place.
"In doing some research on our candidates for the Governor of California, I began to ponder over the direction of the Republican party, particularly on social issues. Two of my very close friends, who happen to be capital R-republicans, attended John McCain’s endorsement of Republican candidate Meg Whitman this past week in Orange County. They rushed home to give me the news they knew I wanted. She’s pro-choice and proud of it!
I’ll be the first to admit that the news excited me. Despite my distaste with the core objectives of the Republican party, it was great to hear an intelligent and independent woman standing up to a crowd of anti-choice supporters to self-identify as a pro-choice advocate.
And honestly, that’s exactly what Meg Whitman is. A strong, independent, thought-provoking woman who stands as a role model for hard working and dedicated women all over the globe. Meg Whitman is one of only seven women to be consistently ranked among the world’s most influential people by Time Magazine. The Wall Street Journal named her one of the “50 Women to Watch” in 2005; Fortune ranked her the most powerful woman in business in 2004 and 2005; and BusinessWeek has included her on its list of the 25 most powerful business managers every year since 2000..."
Whitman is clearly not voicing her views on the issue from her website as far as I can tell. She may try and slit the difference on social issues by opposing gay marriage, but I think the murder of unborn babies ought to take a prima facie precedent in this case.
I am not always convinced that boycotts work well unless there are active protests outside a specific location. But in case you want to avoid your money going to Planned Parenthood, Life Site News has posted some information.
"Life Decisions International (LDI) has released a revised edition of The Boycott List, which identifies corporations that are boycott targets due to their support of Planned Parenthood, the world's primary abortion-advocacy group.
"As a direct result of the commitment, action and prayers of pro-family people, at least 231 corporations have stopped funding Planned Parenthood," said LDI Chairman Thomas C. Strobhar. It is estimated that the boycott has cost Planned Parenthood more than $40 million since the Corporate Funding Project (CFP) began nearly 17 years ago. "This should serve as a testament to those who thought it impossible to change corporate philanthropic behavior."
Corporations continuing as boycott targets from the previously released Boycott List include eBay (Pay {Pal, etc.), AlphaGraphics, Wells Fargo (including Wachovia), Nike, Time Warner (HBO, AOL, etc.), Bank of America, Walt Disney, Johnson & Johnson, Lost Arrow (Patagonia, etc.), Chevron, and Nationwide Insurance, and Sonic (restaurants), among others..."
I wonder how parents are reacting to an activist judge's arrogance in assuming that he knows what is better for their daughters in regards to abortion?
"A state judge blocked enforcement of a parental notification law on abortion just hours after a state board approved letting it go into effect. The law would allow parents the right to know when their teenager daughter is considering having an abortion and give them 48 hours to help her find alternatives.
Parents in Illinois have waited for 15 years for a law to go into effect and, earlier Wednesday, a vote from the Illinois' Medical Disciplinary Board made it appear that would happen.
The Illinois legislature approved the law in the 1990s, but it has been held up in court waiting for the Illinois Supreme Court to issue the rules guiding the law's implementation.
After the court did its job, state officials blocked enforcement of the law with a 90-day grace period for abortion centers to became aware of it -- even though similar laws have been on the books in other states for decades.
The board met in Chicago on Wednesday and decided not to extend the grace period further that the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation put in place..."
Not only is Planned Parenthood, pro-abortion absolutists, and anyone who claims to be pro-choice basing their views on the Dark Ages of prenatal medicine, they are also wanting women to kill their unborn child in total ignorance about the life inside them. This is done by opposing giving women facts about their unborn child or having them view an ultrasound of their baby. It is a lot easier to kill "it" when the mother is denied the truth about what "it" is, namely her unborn boy or girl with a heart beat. Imagine what it might do if the woman about to abort her child sees her baby's heart beat for the first time? This seems to explain the resignation of Abby Johnson at a Texas Planned Parenthood facility.
Here is an ultrasound of my twin boys at about 25 weeks.
An abortion would kill them, plan and simple. You can notice the features of their body and they are developing every second. It is time for pro-abortion absolutists to come out of the Dark Ages in which they are basing their morally depraved and backward views on. Come into the modern era and stop denying the truth about the unborn.
The pro-abortion absolutists who are behind Planned Parenthood and controlling the Democratic Party's Culture of Death, are basing their policies on the Dark Ages of prenatal medicine. Thankfully a technology, like ultrasounds, can give us a window into the unborn baby's life. Seeing a baby killed was enough to cause Abby Johnson to leave Planned Parenthood.
There is newly created group that is trying to mobilize to stop the passage of the Democrats pro-abortion health care abomination. It is called Stop The Abortion Mandate and it is doing a webcast tonight.
This blog has been set up to defend the unborn boys and girls that are killed every day by abortion. This blog is also helping a pro-life clinic in Whittier, California stand for the unborn. The WPCC can use your support financially and also by volunteering your time.
The posts on this blog will reflect a diverse group of individuals who are all committed to the unified cause of advocating for the unborn. Both in arguing for the personhood of the unborn and responding to those who would deny such personhood. Let us work together to make an impact in the defense of the most helpless and oppressed group the world has ever witnessed.
Posts
