I've No "Core Canadian Values".

According to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Bieber Justin Trudeau, being pro-life, I am not in-line with the Canadian government nor who Canadians are as a society.

Just what I need.....another reason not to visit Canada.

Thailand Fights to Prevent First World Exploitation of Third World Women.

In 2013, a gay "married" couple contracted with a surrogate mother in India in order to purchase their own baby. Gordon "Bud" Lake and his "husband", Manuel Santos Valero bought their son, Alvero, just months before the Indian government moved to shut down the commercial surrogacy industry.

About one and a half years ago, the two husbands wanted to buy yet another baby in order to fulfill their narcissistic world view, but no longer being allowed to exploit third world women in India, they choose Thailand as the next best place.

Not long after renting the womb of surrogate Patidta Kusongsaang, the couple found themselves in a legal quagmire in Thailand; the government has banned commercial surrogacy for international couples.

The now six month old girl, Carmen, has no passport or papers required to leave Thailand. Kusongsaang had signed the consent form that allowed Lake and Santos to take Carmen from the hospital and they put Lake’s name on the birth certificate. But then Kusongsaang failed to show up for the last meeting at the U.S. embassy to sign the final document.

After learning that the man who had contracted with her was in a homosexual "marriage", the surrogate changed her mind on allowing the sperm donor to have the child. It should be noted that the egg used was donated by a women other than Kusongsaang, and while she carried and delivered the baby, Kusongsaang and Carmen share no DNA. Never the less, as the birth mother, Kusongsaang has full legal custody of the child.

Kusongsaang has filed charges against Lake and Valero for child abduction. The two men are stranded in Thailand - changing apartments regularly in order to keep the baby hidden.

Kusongsaang's legal advisor, Verutai Maneenuchanert, says the commercial surrogacy business was wrong from the very beginning. Maneenuchanert calls commercial surrogacy human trafficking and says Kusongsaang is the victim.

Fortunately, Lake and Santos have very little chance of winning their case in Thai court. Dr. Arkom Pradidsuwan, who is with the Thai Medical Council in the Ministry of Public Health, said,

"Thai law does not endorse same sex pair. And Thai law, legal couple is husband and wife, man and woman".

Pradidsuwan says baby Carmen’s legal status belongs to Patidta Kusongsaang.

Three cheers for the Thai government. What gives the right to these affluent, narcissistic First Worlders - either Gay or Straight - to exploit these impoverished women in Third World countries? The idea of surrogacy is immoral; add to that, the exploitation and the issue of human trafficking and the immorality is compounded.

Not only should the Thai government take this child away from these two men, but I think a bit of jail time might be in order.
Sources:
infiniteguest.org
npr.org
thinkprogress.org
bangkokpost.com

Russians Unveil Heterosexual Flag.

Anybody seen holding this flag in the U.S. would probably be called a "hater".

From UPI: Russia's ruling party fights 'gay fever' with 'Heterosexual Flag'

MOSCOW, July 9 (UPI) -- The ruling party of Russia has unveiled a "heterosexual flag" designed to represent "a real family" and "traditional values" in response to same-sex marriage.

United Russia, the party of President Vladimir Putin, introduced Moscow residents to the "heterosexual flag," which depicts the silhouettes of a man, a woman and three children along with a Russian hashtag that translates to, "A Real Family."

In stark contrast to the rainbow flag used to represent lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender pride and rights movements, the United Russia straight flag bears only two colors, but is available in a number of different schemes .

The party said the flag's release was timed to coincide with the Day of Family, Love and Fidelity, an annual Russian celebration that was marked in the country Wednesday.

Andrei Lisovenko, deputy head of the United Russia branch in Moscow, said the flag was inspired by the U.S. Supreme Court's June 26 decision to strike down the country's remaining bans on same-sex marriage.

"This is our response to same-sex marriage, to this mockery of the concept of the family. We have to warn against gay fever at home and support traditional values in our country," Lisovenko told newspaper Izvestia.

Recruiter's Surrender Instrumental in Mary Jane's Reprieve.

Maria Kristina P. Sergio, aka Mary Christine Gulles Pasadilla, the alleged recruiter of Mary Jane Veloso, has surrendered to authorities in Nueva Ecija. According to philstar.com,"Sergio said she surrendered as she fears for her life after receiving death threats. She maintained, however, that she was not responsible for deceiving Veloso but she is willing to undergo investigation".

The National Bureau of Investigation-Anti Human Trafficking Division (NBI-AHRAD) alleges that Veloso is a victim of deception and human trafficking.

abs-cbnnews.com is reporting that Sergio's being in custody was instrumental in the Indonesian government's grant of reprieve that spared Veloso from being executed at midnight on Wednesday.

Sergio, along with her live-in partner Julius Lacanilao and an African man identified as "Ike" have been charged with human trafficking, illegal recruitment and estafa.

Rappler.com has done an excellent job covering all the aspects of Mary Jane Veloso's case.

Writer Wants All Ten Year Old Boys Castrated.

It's funny, sometimes, how we get from point A to point B. The route we take isn't always the most direct.

This morning a found a spamish email in my inbox from the speroforum. I don't know why I've suddenly become the recipient of Speronews; to the best of my knowledge, I didn't intentionally subscribe to it. Be that as it may, thanks to the email, I learned of an open letter to Pope Francis being circulated by a group calling itself The Cornwall Alliance.

The group describes itself as,
"A coalition of theologians, pastors, ministry leaders, scientists, economists, policy experts, and committed laymen, the Cornwall Alliance is an evangelical voice promoting environmental stewardship and economic development built on Biblical principles."

I've read their open letter, and I'm not quite sure what to make of it. The letter, however, isn't the point of this post. The Cornwall Alliance website posts articles, originally posted elsewhere, which reference global warming - or climate change.

One such article is one written by Megan Toombs ,originally published on Townhall.com. In the article, Toombs rightly criticizes an article by Katie Herzog, Why I’ll never have kids, and why you shouldn’t either. As Toombs explains, Herzog's basic argument "is that Earth’s climate is in danger, it’s our fault, and something must be done—something drastic."

Herzog's solution?

"Ritualistically castrate all males at age ten, and destroy dams and other infrastructure, 'preparing the earth for the end of people' ".

Besides her view that reproducing human offspring is destroying the planet, another reason why she will never have babies is because she is "a tote-bag-carrying-nature-loving-gun-hating-child-free-atheist" Lesbian who has no maternal instinct.

Offhand, I can think of another reason why Herzog will never reproduce.

Finding Darwin's God.

Pat Archbold, one half of Creative Minority Report, recently wrote an opinion piece for Nation Catholic Register, entitled "They Call Them Theories For A Reason", where he discusses the Church's response or responses to "the origins of the universe, the origins of life on earth, or any other in vogue unproven theory".

Generally, I enjoy reading anything written by either of the Archbold brothers, but perhaps Pat should refrain from writing on "the origins of the universe, the origins of life on earth, or any other in vogue unproven theory" as well.

One person leaving comments on the post recommended we read a book written by Kenneth R Miller - Finding Darwin's God. I'm in the middle of the book and I'd like to recommend it to anyone interested in the subject of God and evolution.

Kenneth Raymond Miller is an American cell biologist and molecular biologist who is currently Professor of Biology and Royce Family Professor for Teaching Excellence at Brown University (Wikipedia) and a Roman Catholic. Miller does a fairly good job arguing that an acceptance of evolution is compatible with a belief in God. I must admit that portions of Miller's book go way over my head, but the fault is mine, not Miller's.

Miller's book isn't new.....it was originally published in 2000. That same year, was reviewed by the now late Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation Science. Needless to say, Morris did not agree with Miller's defense of evolution. Morris, an Independent Baptist is critical of Miller because he (Miller) does not mention Jesus Christ in his book. The fact that Miller is a Catholic who repeatedly professes belief in God, is not good enough for Morris.

In 1996, Morris published an article on the Institute for Creation Science website, slamming what he called "public papal evolutionism" in general and Popes Pius XII and John Paul II in particular. I can't think of a greater compliment than to be put into the same category those two Popes.

Lawmaker Stands By Bill Requiring Man’s Consent for Abortion

In the far-right corner of this blog, one will find a series of links listed under News Sources. Most of the links featured are not to American news websites.

The reason behind my choices of sources has to do with my desire to get as many POV's as I could when trying to get the ends and outs of a variety of stories. Obviously, a story as reported on FoxNews or CNN might have a different slant when viewed on Aljazeera or Sputnik US. In some cases, stories found on BBC or on an Australian news outlet might not even appear on an American website.

One particular case in point involves the reporting of Missouri lawmaker Rick Brattin's introduction of Missouri State House Bill 131 which would require that "no abortion shall be performed or induced unless and until the father of the unborn child provides written,notarized consent to the abortion,except in cases in which the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed or induced was the victim of rape or incest and the pregnancy resulted from the rape or incest".

The American press [ kfor.com and kansascity.com for example] choose to paint Brattin's bill as an attempt to restrict women's Rights.

" 'It’s simply demeaning and degrading to women. We, and most of the voters in Missouri, believe that women can make their own decisions both about their lives generally and about their healthcare specifically,' said Laura McQuad, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and mid-Missouri."

The same story, as presented by the Russian newsite,us.sputniknews adds something left out in the U.S. reporting.

"When Missouri lawmaker Rick Brattin found out he was required to have his wife’s consent for his own vasectomy, he thought about how 'twisted' it is that the same rule does not apply to women seeking an abortion."

us.sputniknews quotes Brattin, by way of Mother Jones,

"When a man goes in for that procedure—at least in the state of Missouri—you have to have a consent form from your spouse in order to have that procedure done," he told Mother Jones. "Here I was getting a normal procedure that has nothing to do with another human being's life, and I needed to get a signed form…But on ending a life, you don't. I think that's pretty twisted."

As someone who agrees with the Catholic Church's condemnation of vasectomies, I can understand the reasoning behind a law requiring a wife's consent before a man can have a vasectomy. I do, however, see Brattin's point. I've always disagreed with the idea that a man doesn't have a say in the abortion of his own child.

I'm sure that the biased American media will succeed in painting Rick Brattin as a far-Right wing, anti-choice kook. Knowing America as well as I do, I know that abortion on demand will continue to be the law of the land. It would be nice, however, if while defending abortion, the media could, at least present an accurate description of both sides of the argument.

I won't hold my breathe.

Torture.

As an expatriate who will probably never vote in another American election, some might argue that I have no business commenting on American politics. Maybe so. However, it is difficult for me to not comment on the recent report from the Senate Intelligence Committee concerning the CIA and torture.

My response is really fairly simple and straight forward. Paragraph 2297 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states -
"Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity".
 The use of torture is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. No exceptions.

On this, writer Mark Shea are in agreement. As a conservative, you cannot use Charles Krauthammer as a defense witness for your support of torture. As much as I might find some of Krauthammer's thoughts close to brilliant, he is not Catholic and his ideas on torture are as sinful as his thoughts on abortion.

As I said, on the sinfulness of torture, Mark Shea and I are in agreement, but there is something about his recent rants against conservative Catholics that rubs me the wrong way. Perhaps, he isn't quite expressing himself well, but Shea has a particular dislike for "conservative" Catholics and he appears to relish this opportunity to tar an entire group for the sins of a few, so-called, "pro-life Catholics" who have defended torture.

I agree that these particular Catholics were in serious error when they either defended torture or looked the other way, but I feel as if many conservative Catholics were splattered with paint when Shea threw his proverbial bucket of scarlet paint upon the guilty.

As one commenter on Shea's blog, going under the name Jassuz8, wrote,

"I hope you keep trying to raise awareness for this and all pro-life issues. But, I also hope that you transition to a more constructive, uplifting approach...now that you seem to have everyone's attention."

Dr. Death visits Auschwitz.

Dr Wims Distelmans, who practices euthanasia in a Brussels clinic, wishing to ‘clarify confusion’ (whatever that means) led a group, consisting of doctors, psychologists and nurses from Belgium, (most of whom also work in the area of euthanasia) to the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz.

Naturally, Jewish and anti-euthanasia campaigners have reacted with horror, saying the trip, billed as a study tour, is ‘offensive and shocking’.

At one point during the trip, while in Krakow, the members of the group received name-tags. From Der Spiegel:

"Distelmans pins his name-tag to his T-shirt, places his scarf on top of it, and pulls his jacket over his scarf. 'I don't know if I have any opponents here,' he says. Before the trip, a picture of him appeared on Google. Someone had doctored the image and put an SS uniform over his sweater."

I was more than happy to locate the photo and post it here.

In a story overflowing with irony, one portion stands out. At one point, the group discusses "the case of a colleague in the group who asked if he is allowed to kill a Nazi. The patient in question is paralyzed on one side and is a former member of the Waffen-SS. In fact, a portrait of Hitler hangs over his sofa. The colleague refused to perform euthanasia because he doesn't feel the Nazi deserves a painless, gentle death".

All through the article, we were told that those advocating euthanasia wanted to give the patient control over his or her own death. Doctors shouldn't prolong life out of a sense of control and a desire for power over the patient, we're told. Yet, here we have the very same doctors maintaining that certain individuals don't deserve "a painless, gentle death".

Distelmans, however feels differently that his colleagues. "He says that he would do it out of respect for the man's pain and humanity -- as an act of unconditional love."

Some might say he simply would never pass an opportunity to kill someone.

World Changing? Yes. New? Not So Much.

From the BBC Future WORLD-CHANGING IDEAS SUMMIT website, we have this:

"On October 21, BBC FUTURE will present the first-ever WORLD-CHANGING IDEAS SUMMIT, which will showcase the power of bringing forward-thinking leaders together to build a better tomorrow."

Really?

Right off hand I'd say that the folks who bring us the TED conferences might argue that the BBC's WORLD-CHANGING IDEAS SUMMIT, may not be the first-ever.

Be that as it may, let's look at a few of the ideas which will be put forward by these "forward-thinking leaders".

Some of the topics which the event's "diverse community" will discuss include:

"Why We Need to Live On Other Planets"
"Why Everyone Needs a Drone"
"Robots Everywhere! Can’t Live with Them, Can’t Kill Them"
to list just three.

And let's not forget Rahm's older brother, Ezekiel J. Emanuel's topic, "Just Because We Can Live Longer Doesn't Mean We Should".

If you want to get up to speed on Emanuel's idea, you can read his recent article in The Atlantic, Why I Hope to Die at 75.

Unlike novelist Martin Amis, who advocates euthanasia booths for the elderly, Emanuel maintains that he is against euthanasia and says that he will not engage in euthanasia or suicide, but that he will simply give up any medical treatments after the age of 75.

He said, "I won’t actively end my life. But I won’t try to prolong it, either."

For Emanuel, "This means colonoscopies and other cancer-screening tests are out—and before 75",
and -
"After 75, if I develop cancer, I will refuse treatment. Similarly, no cardiac stress test. No pacemaker and certainly no implantable defibrillator. No heart-valve replacement or bypass surgery. If I develop emphysema or some similar disease that involves frequent exacerbations that would, normally, land me in the hospital, I will accept treatment to ameliorate the discomfort caused by the feeling of suffocation, but will refuse to be hauled off."

Basically, Emanuel believes that after a certain point, life just isn't worth the hassle. I can't understand how Emanuel can say with a straight face that his attitude won't lead to an increase in euthanasia or suicide.

For Emanuel, life just isn't worthwhile if it isn't on his terms.

Clueless Pro-Choicers.

I first came upon the video of Marni Evans and her fiance, John Lockhart, who had to delay a scheduled abortion after a decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed Texas to implement new regulations on abortions by way of a ChurchMilitant.TV video. I found it again via Catholic Vote.org. Now, it appears the video is everywhere.

In the video below, the couple calmly discuss their decision to abort their unborn child.



I have to agree with the writer of an article on the National Right to Life website who said, "it’d be hard to pick a less sympathetic couple". The two appear to be totally clueless when it comes to understanding that they are talking about taking the life of a human being.

Their reasons for aborting their child? The typical, "we can't afford it excuse". They also admit that they haven't invested enough into their relationship.

Can't Ms. Evans see that her fiance is essentially telling her that, oh yes, I care for you but I can't possibly think of supporting your offspring?

Likewise, Evans is letting Lockhart know, in no uncertain terms, that she'd rather kill his child than bring it into the world.

Pro-abortion writers who agree with Evans & Lockhart call us "anti-choice". That's supposed to be an insult. How dare we deny someone a "choice"?

One especially clueless individual commenting on the original Texas Tribune article had this enlightening observation.

"If you don't want one,[abortion] don't have one. I don't like Brussels sprouts but I don't scream at people who choose eat them. Their choice."

The decision whether or not to allow your offspring to live is like choosing whether or not to eat Brussels sprouts.
Dear Lord, where do these people come from?

All we can do is pray for them.

Abortion in Sign Language.

I first came across this gif a few days ago. In it, a woman is demonstrating the word "abortion" in American sign language.

I didn't post the gif  at the time for, actually, a pretty stupid reason. I thought everyone had already seen it. Well, obviously, not everyone has.

When I came across a post on LarryD's blog, linking to the image, I decided that this needs to have more exposure.

This "sign" does a pretty good job describing abortion.

Latest News Devastates Progressives.

Progressives across the United States were devastated Friday upon learning that the two suspects wanted for the Boston Marathon bombing were Muslims. Liberal's hopes that the perpatrators would be right-wing domestic terrorists had been buoyed Thursday evening when photos released by police revealed that the two were a couple of white guys.

Viewing the world through a racial prism, the Progressives had failed to take into account that not all Islamic extremists are "dark-skinned".

Even after it was proven that the Boston bombing wasn't carried out by anti-tax, Tea Party supporters, Michael Moore celebrated the fact that he had correctly predicted the bombers would not be women.

No word so far on the Tsarnaev brother's views on abortion or same-sex marriage.

Kansas Wants Child Support from Sperm Donor.

I'll do my best to be,uh, unsnarky while writing this particular post.

In 2009, a lesbian couple, Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner of Kansas, placed an ad on Craigslist in their search for a sperm donor. Their ad (and resumably, their prayers) were answered by one William Marotta, also of the great State of Kansas.

After meeting with Marotta and his wife, - and choosing not to use a clinic or doctor - Schreiner inseminated herself with a syringe. Bauer, Schreiner and Marotta signed an agreement relieving Marotta of any financial or paternal responsibility.

At some point, Schreiner and Bauer split up and according to one news report, "when Bauer was diagnosed in March with what she calls 'a significant illness' that prevents her from working, Schreiner sought health insurance for their daughter from the state. The DCF told Schreiner if she didn't provide the sperm donor's name, it would deny any health benefits because she was withholding information."

With the sperm donor's name, the Kansas Department of Children and Families claimed that Marotta was the baby's father and needed to support her.

From a legal standpoint, it's difficult to say if Marotta should have to repay the State for the $6,000 that Schreiner received through public assistance. After all, an agreement was signed by all three parties involved. The State of Kansas claims that the agreement isn't valid because no doctor was involved in the insemination.

Regardless of the "legalities", I believe Marotta should be made to pay child support. Artificial insemination, with or without a doctor, is immoral. The idea that Marotta could help create a human being without being responsible in morally reprehensible. Marotta was more than willing to donate sperm to two complete strangers whom he met via the Internet. An article on one website attempts to muddy the waters by suggesting "homophobia", but the process wouldn't be moral even if the woman was heterosexual. Should Marotta be made to pay, perhaps others will be reluctant to become sperm donors.

In its attempt to get money in a way which might be questionable legally, the State of Kansas might actually be encouraging moral behavior. That would be ironic coming from the home of Kathleen Sebelius.

Democrats Support Sex-Selection-Abortion.

No doubt about it; Obama and his fellow Democrats - slash- Leftists - love abortion so much, they will not agree to outlaw abortions based on gender selection.

From Catholic Online:

"The Prenatal Discrimination Act (PRENDA) was defeated before a committee of the US House of Representatives on Thursday, May 31, 2012. Given the procedural means by which the vote was called, passage required a 2/3 majority. The final vote tally was 246 for making the killing of children in the womb based on their gender illegal. The number of those who support the intentional killing of children in the womb based on gender as some kind of protected "right" was 168 representatives. "

Proof that abortion based on the fetus' gender doesn't bother Obama and the Democrats can be found at these sources.

1)The administration's statement to Jake Tapper.

2)Ms Magazine.

3)rhrealitycheck.org.

4)Think Progress.

The list goes on and on.

Those who believe that PRENDA is simply a Republican trick can and should read the bill which can be found here.

The Busy, Busy Sperm Donor.

I wish that this story was one of my little parodies. Sadly, it isn't........it's a true story.

Back in 2008, when the Huffington Post first published an article on Ed Houben - along with this interview - Houben had "fathered" 46 children, mostly via artificial insemination as a sperm donor. Now, according to an article in Der Spiegel, he has 86 children with 10 more on the way.

Originally, Houben would simply donate his sperm to Dutch sperm banks. After four years, he had donated enough for 25 children and could no longer legally donate sperm in Holland. Ironically, Houben was still a virgin at the time.

Not wanting to give up his life as a sperm donor, Houben found a way of coming in contact with women wanting children. Some were single, heterosexual women who were having problems finding "Mr. Right", some were married women with infertile husbands, while some were lesbians who wanted children.

Houben even has a website and Facebook page. The photo comes from his website.

When reading his story at Der Spiegel, it should be obvious to any thinking person that Houben has psychological problems. Houben and the women who've made use of his "service" believe that he's doing a good thing. I'm sure he may have good intentions, but we all know the cliche about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions.

If anything, everyone involved in this tragedy is in need of our prayers.

Why are Birth Control Pills and Abortifacients so Important to Obama?

After even Liberal Catholics objected to Obama's recent attempt to force religious-affiliated employers to provide free birth control coverage even if it runs counter to their beliefs, Obama has announced what he feels is a workable compromise. According to the spin, the "religious-affiliated employer" will no longer be required to pay for the contraceptives and abortifacients, but will be provided, free of charge by the insurance company.

Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, head of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said it was a "first step". Dolan isn't going to be fooled by the President's shenanigans.

A caller on a radio talk show brought up an interesting point; namely, if this is simply a health issue as Obama claims, why then not free access to all life saving medications? As far as I know, most women will not die if they are not taking birth control, but millions can die without blood pressure medication, medicines to treat high cholesterol and/or high triglycerides to name just three.

The President's pals at NARAL claim that free birth control is "critical to protecting women’s health". Evidently, cardiac medications and insulin for diabetics aren't critical enough in protecting anyone's health to be given away free.

The pro-abortionists in the Obama administration want to provide drugs that will prevent something natural (pregnancy) but medications that actually save human life aren't important.

Richard Cohen's Science Class.

Not surprisingly, Richard Cohen slams the Republican Party in his recent piece in the Washington Post. A party of nitwits (in Cohen's estimation) the party has "turned hostile to thought, reason and the two most important words in the English language: It depends."

In Cohen's world, the Republicans are anti-intellectuals par excellence because the dolts in the party cannot appreciate nuance, subtlety and relativism.

Regarding abortion, Cohen writes, 
"If you ask me what I think of abortion, I’d say, 'It depends.' It depends on whether you’re talking about the ninth month of pregnancy, the first, the health of the mother, the fetus — or, even, the morning-after pill. But in the Republican contest, the answer to the question is always the same: no, no and no again. Thanks for giving the matter such careful thought."

Evidently, Cohen hasn't given the matter such careful thought either.

I've addressed Cohen's lack of understanding of basic biology before regarding so called, same sex marriage [It's the Biology, Stupid.]. I suppose Cohen was asleep during whatever science classes he was required to take in school. The human fetus is human "whether you’re talking about the ninth month of pregnancy, the first, the health of the mother, the fetus — or, even, the morning-after pill." Cohen doesn't grasp this basic, scientifically verified fact.

Cohen goes on to claim the Republican's opposition to his view on global warming isn't based on their having studied the science.....you know, the way he's studied the science regarding human reproduction. (Cohen might want to read this from the Wall Street Journal).

I'm looking forward to Cohen's column this coming November, when he calls the United States a country of nitwits for having thrown Barack Obama out of office.

Pink Ribbon? No, Thanks.

I had been forewarned, so I knew what to expect. Actually, I'm one of the few who pays attention during our little ten minute meeting before 7 o'clock at work.

Last week, our supervisor told us that the corporate office was a big supporter of the Susan G. Komen organization and she'd be providing pink ribbons for everyone to wear today. When she attempted to give one to me, I said, "No thank you". Of course, she wanted to know why I'd refuse to support such a "worthy cause".

Anyone who is seriously involved with the Pro-life movement already knows the answer; for those who are unaware of the connection between Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood, I've post two links.

According to this article at lifenews.com , "Komen’s ties to Planned Parenthood are well documented and figures from STOPP International show Komen chapters giving $711,485 from April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006 to Planned Parenthood affiliates."

I explained to my supervisor that I could not support the Susan G. Komen organization because of it's ties with Planned Parenthood......she said that she didn't agree with the "political agenda" of Susan G. Komen either, but this was about breast cancer awareness. I stood my ground and refused to wear the pink ribbon.

The more I thought about "breast cancer awareness" the more I realized the absurdity of the idea of wearing a pink ribbon while being opposed to Komen. Let's suppose the company supported a program like, say, "AIDS awareness" or even "influenza awareness" we could discuss how AIDS could be prevented by not doing A,B,C, or D. Some folks need to learn about how influenza is not just a severe cold, but a dangerous disease that caused serious epidemics before flu vaccines where developed. With "breast cancer awareness", there is little the average Joe or Josephine can do....other than donate money. So, who's going to get the money? These pink ribbon folks want you to give it to Susan G. Komen which will, in turn, give a portion of your money to the largest abortion provider on the planet.

No, thanks.

Conspicuous By Their Absence.

I recently joined the pro-life committee at our parish; I attended my first "Life Chain" this past Oct 2nd and attended my first committee meeting last night.

I'm not going to attempt to relate everything we discussed at this meeting. However, I want to write about one particular discussion which took me completely by surprise. The idea came to me, shortly after the "Life Chain" demonstration, that as eventful as our demonstration was, it would have been truly remarkable had pro-life groups from other churches in our fair city participated as well.

I learned that my idea was not new; the pro-life committee had tried to bring other churches on board only to discover that, sadly none of the Protestant church in this area have pro-life committees/ministries nor were any interested in furthering the pro-life agenda.

It would appear that the abortion issue is too hot for these Protestants to handle.

Thinking about this, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the more liberal denominations would shy away from the subject of abortion, but it does surprise me that the more conservative denominations (Baptist - Church of God for example) aren't as actively pro-life as the Catholic church.

Of course, there's always the possibility that they're simply being anti-Catholic, but I don't think that's it. For one thing, all these churches (ours included) come together and actively support the Community Soup Kitchen. No,the truth is, the Protestant churches in our area don't "do" pro-life.