Commentary: Debunking Adoption Myths

An interesting story from www.lifesitenews about some common myths about abortion. This follows this post about the Barack Obama's Supreme Court analysis. This follows this post about the Obamacare doctor shortage. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Commentary: Debunking Adoption Myths


Guest commentary by Amanda Lord
April 20, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - We often shake our heads at the prevailing cultural attitude that sees adoption as somehow worse than killing a preborn child outright—but are we pro-lifers partially responsible for propagating that myth?
I became pregnant at 18 years of age. I was terrified, I had very little money and even less knowledge about how to raise a child. When I was about seven months pregnant, I moved into Sunlight Home in Naples, Florida. Sunlight is an amazing maternity home that helps women in crisis pregnancies.
The day I moved in, Miss Linda, the director, asked me about my plans for my baby. I didn’t have an answer. To this day, I thank God for Miss Linda, a wise lady who cared enough to suggest adoption to this confused 18 year old. Although there was nothing easy about the decision, I placed my beautiful son William Martin for adoption two days after his birth.
Even before making the final decision, I was berated with negativity. I was told, “a woman who loves her baby wouldn’t give him away” and even told that my son would “surely hate me for giving him up.” Shortly before signing the papers that would legally relinquish my parental rights, a social worker confided to me: “If a girl decides to have sex, she needs to deal with the consequence of raising her child.”
Despite the negativity, it has been almost five years since I placed William into the loving arms of his adoptive parents. To this day, I still face criticism and false stereotypes from those inside and outside of the pro-life movement. It is imperative that pro-lifers distinguish the facts from the myths surrounding adoption. If not, adoption will continue to be clouded in negativity and many women will decide it is easier to abort instead of considering the loving act of adoption.
Myth 1: Birthmothers have long been stereotyped as uneducated and helpless.
In fact, a 1988 study by Steven McLaughlin showed that unmarried birthmothers who placed were more likely to continue their education and were less likely to receive public assistance than women who chose to parent their children.
Myth 2: Birthmothers don’t love the child that they place for adoption.
This statement is simply not true. As a proud birthmother, I can say that I don’t believe I could love my son more. Even though I have not seen my child in almost five years, his life brings so much joy to me. The poem “All I Have Missed” by Amy L. Chenault expresses the love a woman feels for her child perfectly:
“Through all I have missed my love still abound(s) I thank God each day for you, Mom and Dad, I found.”
Myth 3: Birthmothers suffer irrevocable damage from placing.
“Contrary to popular belief, mothers don’t go on in this world after ‘giving up’ a child, enjoying their lives and forgetting the child ever existed. Even though people would love to think this is true, it’s not the reality of the situation for most of us. Our lives are colored by the traumatic event and we are never the same afterwards. Most of us grieve for years ....” said Jaymie Frederick, who prefers the term “natural (first) mother” and is now a professional searcher and private investigator
It is true that some women feel like “exiled mothers” once they place their child for adoption, but that is not the norm now. Ms. Frederick’s experience echoes that of many women who placed children during what has been called the “baby scoop era” of the 1940s through the early 1970s, when unmarried mothers were basically shunned by society and forced into adoptions.
These days, you are more apt to hear a birthmother say, “It was not an easy decision any way I decided. I chose adoption. Looking back, it was the right decision and I have no regrets, not at all” (anonymous). The key is that she “chose” adoption. There are many web sites started by women who have found peace and joy in the choice of placing their child for adoption (See here and here).
However, if you encounter a woman who continues to feel an intense sorrow from placing her child long after she relinquished her parental rights, it is our duty as pro-lifers to help her gain the peace of mind she deserves by sharing the love of Christ with her.
Myth 4: Placing a child for adoption means a woman “gave up” that child.
First off, the term “giving up a child for adoption” is not at all helping the pro-life movement. Using the term “give up” likens the act to giving up sweets when on a diet. To change minds, one must use the correct wording and remove the false rhetoric. No one gives up a baby. If a woman chooses adoption, she is placing her child into the adoptive parents’ care. And actually, many adopted children are thankful that they were given a life they may not have been able to have if their birthmother hadn’t decided to place them for adoption: “I often receive calls from adult adopted children who ask our agency to locate their birth mother so that they can say ‘thank you’ for placing them for adoption. Placing a baby for adoption can be a self-sacrifice of heroic proportions,” said Susan Sedensky, J.D., an adoption coordinator with the Diocese of Norwich, Connecticut.
If you speak with adoptees, they will almost always tell you that they don’t feel that they were “given up.” They recognize the blessing it is to have been placed for adoption. An adopted friend of mine had this to say about her birthmother and adoptive parents: “I am so thankful to both sets of my parents. They selflessly gave me a gift that cannot be equaled. The love that they shared is incomprehensible. And I know how special and loved I am because of the sacrifices my parents made for me. An adopted kid is one of the most loved kids because of the humongous sacrifices of the biological parent,” said Krista Fagan-Cox, adopted two months after birth.
Myth 5: Abortion is easier and “a lesser heartache” than adoption.
“[Women considering abortion] will say, 'I know it's killing my baby,' but they still think that it would be worse to have the baby, see the baby, know they have a baby, and then give it away,” revealed Peggy Hartshorn, president of Heartbeat International in a recent article about the dwindling number of adoptions.
It’s hard for many in the pro-life movement to understand this frightening mindset, but it’s literally a matter of life and death that we try. For many women, abortion seems easier; it ends the turmoil of pregnancy right away: One short “procedure” and normal life can commence without the “stigma” of adoption. You don’t want to coldheartedly hand over your baby, do you? It will all be over soon, one can imagine Planned Parenthood telling vulnerable women. We know this is a dirty lie of the worst kind, but nonetheless, this is the mentality of many women who choose abortion over adoption.
Counseling and birthmother support services can change the longing for a beloved child into joy that, because of the selfless act of adoption, a child is alive and thriving. I truly believe the reason I recognize the blessing of placing William for adoption is because I received Christ-centered counseling and surrounded myself with people who not only love me but also my son.
Myth 6: Adoption is against God’s will.
There is no question that most pro-life activists see the importance and beauty of adoption. They understand that if a woman feels as though she is not yet ready to parent, she can place her child into a pair of loving arms instead of killing that child through abortion. But there is a prominent mindset in the movement that views adoption as an ungodly alternative to abortion. Teresa M. McDonough, the director of the adoption program at Catholic Charities for the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia, has come across such pro-lifers: “[W]e have occasionally encountered people who are pro-life activists who do not support adoption due to a belief that the pregnancy is God's will and, therefore, it is God's will that the woman parents the child.”
If you are a believer, God has become your heavenly Father. In a sense, you were adopted into the family of God. And did not Joseph adopt Jesus into his own family? Can we deny that the child Moses was adopted? Then how can it be said that adoption is against God’s will if the Bible is overflowing with stories of babies being parented by those other than their own flesh and blood? Declaring that adoption is not the will of God is not only causing indecision in the minds of women who are considering adoption but it belittles the beautiful sacrifice a birthmother has made for the child she placed.
Women who find themselves in unplanned pregnancies often feel trapped into either parenting the child in circumstances that they don’t see as ideal or aborting. If we as pro-lifers would work to break the stereotypes that negatively categorize birthmothers, I believe there would be a dramatic decrease in abortions.
I have a picture of William on my desk. While writing this article, I found myself looking at his picture with such joy. I want to do everything in my power to end the needless killing through abortion. And when a woman feels like she cannot possibly parent a child, she and her child deserve to learn of the selfless love and beauty of adoption. Breaking stereotypes and debunking the myths about adoption very well may save the lives of some of the most vulnerable human beings among us.

Obama’s Supreme Court Choice

An interesting story from www.VDare.com about Obama's likely nominee. This follows this post about the pro-abortion stance of most current Supreme Court Nominees This follows this post about the Obamacare doctor shortage. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.


Obama’s Supreme Court Choice
[Steve Sailer] [Email author] [Email this article] [Print this article]

It’s natural to assume that Barack Obama, former president of the Harvard Law Review and lecturer at the U. of Chicago Law School, must be obsessing over his opportunity to make another Supreme Court nomination.Yet, he’s not really as interested in the courts as everybody expects him to be. According to David Remnick’s new biography of him, The Bridge, when he was president of the Harvard Law Review, he considered the Law Review, not unreasonably, kind of a joke — why are students editing professors? And, he never published a law article in all the years he was employed by the U. of Chicago Law School.To Obama, the judicial branch lacks the capabilities to administer the kind of things he wants done, so he doesn’t invest much political capital there.As Obama explained in a radio talk in 2001, the judicial branch isn’t well organized to oversee wealth redistribution. To accomplish that requires executive and legislative power.From Obama’s 2001 radio transcript:
But the supreme court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constitution, at least as it has been interpreted and the warren court interpreted it generally in the same way that the constitution is a document of negative liberties– says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal gov’t can’t do to you but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted; and I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that.” …This interview shows Obama the law professor and politician saying that to bring redistribution of wealth, it’s less effective to be, say, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court than it is to be, say, President of the United States.
Obama’s statement seems perfectly plausible: he’s spent years studying and teaching Constitutional law, but he, personally, decided that his ambitions required elective rather than judicial power.
“You know, maybe I am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way. Just look at very rare examples where during the desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order, you know, changes that cost money to local school district and the court was very uncomfortable with it.”
This is presumably a reference to Kansas City, where a judge ordered a billion dollars extra spending on heavily black schools. Not surprisingly, it didn’t do much for test scores.
“It was hard to manage. It was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues. You know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that is essentially is administrative and take a lot of time, the court is not very good at it and politically it is hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that — although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, you know I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts — I think that as a practical matter that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it. …”So, Obama is saying that he is for “bringing about economic change through the courts” in theory, in practice the courts don’t have the administrative staff and power to do it. Instead, Obama’s goal of “redistribution of wealth” should be achieved through the legislative and executive branches.“Typically, the court can be more or less generous in interpreting actions and initiatives taken, but in terms of funding of abortions and Medicare and Medicaid, the court it not initiating those funding streams. Essentially, what the court is saying is at some point this is a legitimate prohibition or this is not, and I think those are very important battles that need to be fought and I think they have a redistributive aspect to them.”
VDARE.com: Blog Articles — proudly powered by WordPressThe articles on VDARE.com are brought to you by the VDare Foundation.We are supported by generous donations from our readers. Contributions are tax deductible and appreciated. Contribute

Virginia Governor Seeks to Ban State Abortion Funding

An interesting story from http://www.lifesitenews.com/ about a state banning tax-payer abortion fundingThis follows this post about the Obama's Supreme Court nominees. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Virginia Governor Seeks to Ban State Abortion Funding

By John Jalsevac
April 15, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell has put forward an amendment to the state budget that would ban abortion funding by the state, reportedly along the lines of the federal Hyde amendment.
The Hyde amendment bans federal funding of abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or risk to the life of the mother.
Olivia Gans, the President of the Virginia Society for Human Life (VSHL), told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) that she was unable to comment specifically on the amendment, as she has not yet been able to read the actual language. She also expressed concerns that the governor would have significant difficulties moving any pro-life initiatives through the Virginia senate, which she said is predominantly pro-abortion.
Nevertheless, she said, “VSHL members are very aware that Gov. McDonnell hopes to be able to use this entire time as governor looking for opportunities to move forward with pro-life initiatives.”
It is unclear to what extent the amendment would affect current abortion funding practices in the state. The Associated Press reports that a spokesman for Planned Parenthood in Virginia says that it will not affect its operations.
Gov. McDonnell is Catholic, and widely regarded as being staunchly pro-life. Upon his election as governor in November of last year, VSHL lauded the new governor, saying that his election sends the message that “we are not a pro-abortion country, we are in fact a pro-life state and a pro-life America."
Multiple attempts to obtain comment from the governor’s office went unanswered by press time.

Pro-Aborts Top List of Potential Supreme Court Nominees

An interesting story from http://www.lifesitenews.com/ about the Supreme Court Nominees This follows this post about the Obamacare doctor shortage. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Pro-Aborts Top List of Potential Supreme Court Nominees


WASHINGTON, D.C., (LifeSiteNews.com) - As the U.S. awaits word from the White House on who will replace the retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, a list of the most probable nominees has begun slowly to leak: all liberal, some overtly pro-abortion. While Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is one heavily pro-abortion figure whose name has been floated as a possible surprise choice, the Obama administration put the rumor to rest Monday, saying Clinton would remain in her current position.
The short list of potential nominees is believed to include Solicitor General Elena Kagan, former Georgia Supreme Court chief justice Leah Ward Sears, Federal Appellate Judge Diane Wood, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and Federal Appeals Judge Merrick Garland.
Each of the contenders is considered to be at least a fairly liberal choice as a replacement for the far-left Stevens, who announced last week that he would retire at the end of the current session in June.
Solicitor General Kagan, considered one of the frontrunners, is known for strongly supporting taxpayer funding of abortion. She is a vocal critic of the 1991 U.S. Supreme Court decision Rust v. Sullivan, which upheld federal regulations prohibiting Title X family planning fund recipients from counseling on or referring for abortion. Also, according to Americans United for Life, Kagan once suggested in a memo while clerking for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall that faith-based groups operating pregnancy care centers should not counsel pregnant youths, because they would inevitably inject their religious beliefs into the counseling. Kagan has also been criticized for her lack of a judicial record.
Justice Sears, the first female African-American chief justice in U.S. history, has not issued any known decisions on the abortion issue. However, Americans United for Life notes that Sears has indicated that she broadly supports substantive constitutional privacy, the principle upon which Roe v. Wade was decided. In a 1998 decision overturning a ban on sodomy, Sears wrote that the courts were responsible to protect individuals' rights against "morals legislation" from the majority.
Diane Wood is considered a leading liberal justice in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and is considered a radical supporter of legalized abortion. After graduating with her law degree in 1975, Wood clerked for Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of the Roe v. Wade decision.
Wood went on to author the decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the case National Organization for Women v. Scheidler, in which she sided with NOW's attempt to silence Scheidler, the Pro-Life Action Network, and Operation Rescue, extract large monetary damages, and prevent them from protesting at abortion clinics. Wood's decision was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in 2006.
Wood also wrote a dissenting opinion in Christian Legal Society v. Walker, in which she disagreed with the majority opinion that Southern Illinois University was wrong to revoke official student group status of a CLS chapter because it required its members to be Christian.
Secretary Napolitano has already won notoriety among the pro-life community for labeling opposition to abortion as a warning sign of violent "rightwing extremism." A Homeland Security report detailing such "rightwing extremism" as characterized by pro-life and other normative conservative values was eventually pulled after an uproar ensued.
As governor of Arizona prior to her cabinet appointment, Napolitano was known as an extreme abortion supporter, having vetoed several pro-life bills, including a ban on partial-birth abortion and a bill protecting the conscience rights of pharmacists.
The name of D.C. Appeals Court judge Merrick Garland, who has no known record on life issues, has also been floated. Garland, 58, is considered a more moderate choice than the others, although he has earned a reputation as a left-leaning justice.
A rumor that Secretary Clinton could be on an internal short list emerged from an interview on Meet the Press Sunday by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who said he had heard the name mentioned, although he did not elaborate. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs on Monday, however, confirmed that, "The president is going to keep [Clinton] as his secretary of state."
Hatch suggested Monday that the confirmation process for an Obama nominee could go smoothly - should the president stay away from an activist choice.
"If the president picks somebody who is clearly qualified, there is no question we can get that person through in a relatively short period of time," said the senator on NBC's "Today Show." "On the other hand, if he picks an activist judge ... we ought to do everything in our power to defeat that person."
NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the National Organization for Women have already strongly urged President Obama to choose a judge who would uphold Roe v. Wade.
Political analyst Michael Barone at Rasmussen Reports noted that the health care reform debacle could prove central to the vetting process of the next Supreme Court justice. At least 18 states have already filed suit against the government for passing legislation they call a vast overreach of federal power, particularly a mandate requiring citizens to purchase health insurance under penalty of fines, and have expressed determination to bring the issue to the Supreme Court if need be.
"Some 14 state attorneys general are trying to raise the issue in court, and pending state laws outlawing mandates could raise the question, as well. Those state laws are obviously invalid under the supremacy clause unless the federal law is unconstitutional. Is it? I would expect an Obama nominee to decline to answer," wrote Barone.
"But Republicans may not take such a response as meekly as they did when Ginsberg declined to answer dozens of questions back in 1993," he continued. "They might press harder, as they did in 2009 when they prompted Sotomayor to declare, to the dismay of some liberal law professors, that she would only interpret the Constitution and the law, not make new law.
"Just raising the health care mandate issue helps Republicans given the great and apparently growing unpopularity of the Democrats' legislation."

Doctor Shortage Looms Thanks to Health Care Law: Medical Association

An interesting story from http://www.lifesitenews.com/ about Obamacare causing a Doctor shortage. This follows this post about one state banning the legalized abortion of it. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.



Doctor Shortage Looms Thanks to Health Care Law: Medical Association

By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., April 13, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - America faces a shortage of as many as 150,000 primary care physicians in the next 15 years, a threat directly aggravated by the new health care reform law, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).
The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that the AAMC projects a worsening shortage - despite an ongoing push by teaching hospitals and medical schools to boost doctors' ranks - thanks to the sudden influx of insured individuals under the new law.
Such a shortage could spell longer wait times and less access to health care, notes the WSJ.
While the new law includes some incentives to med students considering primary-care medicine, such as a 10% Medicare pay boost, the stream of new doctors will inevitably be strangled by a lack of medical resident positions across America. All medical students must complete a three-year residency to train in hospitals before becoming a full-fledged physician.
The Journal notes that doctors' groups had hoped that a provision to increase the number of funded residency slots would be included in the health care bill, but to no avail.
"It will probably take 10 years to even make a dent into the number of doctors that we need out there," Atul Grover, the AAMC's chief advocacy officer, told the WSJ.
The Associated Press reported Tuesday that 28 states are now considering broadening the authority of nurse practitioners to make up for the shortfall - a move the American Medical Association has reportedly condemned.
In addition, the problem of future doctors may be compounded by the present: an alarming poll conducted by The Medicus Firm just before the heatlh bill's passage in March found that “nearly one-third of physicians responding to the survey indicated that they will want to leave medical practice after health reform is implemented.”
Eight percent of respondents in the poll said they would quit immediately, even if retirement age was nowhere in sight.
The doctor shortage may also be aggravated by a lack of new hospital space: CNSnews.com reported Monday that a provision in the health care bill cuts many doctor-owned hospitals out of Medicare and Medicaid payments, and because of it, more than 60 such hospitals in the planning stages across America have been cancelled.
Molly Sandvig, executive director of Physician Hospitals of America, told CNSNews.com that existing hospitals would suffer as well. “The existing hospitals are greatly affected. They can’t grow. They can’t add beds. They can’t add rooms," said Sandvig. "Basically, it stifles their ability to change and meet market needs. This is really an unfortunate thing as well, because we are talking about some of the best hospitals in the country.”
Aside from the doctor and hospital shortage, the National Right to Life Committee has already sternly warned that the bill's power grab, coupled with cost-saving measures, will undoubtedly lead to health care rationing in another respect. The health reform law, they note, bars senior citizens from using their own money to purchase private health insurance to supplement Medicare - despite the bill's massive cuts to the Medicare program.
NRLC contends that, under this restriction, seniors will have little or no option for treatment outside what Washington bureaucrats deem is adequatley cost-efficient: “Treatment that a doctor and patient in consultation deem needed or advisable to save that patient's life or preserve or improve the patient's health but which the government decides is too costly – even if the patient is willing and able to pay for it – will run afoul of the imposed standards," they wrote.

Tennessee House Strikes Blow to ObamaCare Abortion Coverage

An interesting story from www.lifesitenews.com about one state outlawing the abortion laws in Obamacare This follows this post about the likelihood of a pro-abortion Supreme Court nominee. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Tennessee House Strikes Blow to ObamaCare Abortion Coverage

By Peter J. Smith NASHVILLE, Tennessee, (LifeSiteNews.com)
– A strong bipartisan majority in the Tennessee House of Representatives voted to exercise its right to opt the state out of the abortion mandate in the new national health care reform law. The measure approved by the House forbids insurance companies receiving public subsidies in the state-run health exchange from offering or requiring abortion coverage.
The House passed HB 2681 on the floor Monday by an overwhelming 70 votes in favor, with 23 against. The legislation states: "No health care plan required to be established in this state through an exchange pursuant to federal health care reform legislation enacted by the 111th Congress shall offer coverage for abortion services." (Click here for the list of votes.)
The bill will not alter the state’s TennCare program, which provides Medicaid subsidies for abortions only in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother as mandated by federal law.
Representative Matthew Hill (R-Jonesborough) was singled out for praise by Tennessee Right to Life (TRTL) for sponsoring the legislation and bringing it forward. Hill was joined by 43 other co-sponsors on the bill. "Regardless of the attacks brought by pro-abortion activists, Rep. Hill remained focused on the mission of protecting unborn children and providing real help and alternatives to women and families in need," said Brian Harris, president of TRTL.
Harris also thanked “each pro-life member for their leadership and their courage” in standing up for the state’s strong pro-life values.
"Following years of a pro-abortion minority squelching the voices of the majority, our legislators have boldly expressed our state's commitment to life," he said. The Senate Commerce committee on Wednesday will consider companion legislation to the House bill, SB 2686. The majority of pro-life lawmakers are expected to prevail.
See related coverage by LifeSiteNews.com: States Consider Legislative Plan to Opt-Out of ObamaCare’s Abortion Mandate http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/mar/10032609.html

Senate Republicans: Nomination of Pro-Abortion Elena Kagan Would Spark Court Fight

An interesting story from www.lifenews.com about the potential of an extreme pro-abortionist being nominated to the Supreme Court This follows this post about a group of states challenging the abortion in Obamacare. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Senate Republicans: Nomination of Pro-Abortion Elena Kagan Would Spark Court Fight
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Senate Republicans responded to the retirement of pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens by saying one of the top potential replacements Obama may look to would cause a significant battle. GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee indicated a nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan, an abortion advocate, would spark opposition.
Top Republicans on the panel spoke out in advance of what is expected to be a clash on a likely pro-abortion nominee.“Our nation deserves a Supreme Court nominee who is committed to deciding cases impartially based on the law, not on personal politics, preferences, or what’s in the nominee’s ‘heart,’” said Sen. John Cornyn, a pro-life Texas Republican who is a member of the committee.“Every president has an obligation to nominate judges who understand and are committed to their proper role in our system of government,” added Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican and former chair of the committee.One Republican staffer on the Senate Judiciary Committee told the Daily Caller that Kagan lacks a judicial record that would allow fa vigorous debate of the law.
The staffer also said Kagan is less desirable than other potential Supreme Court selections.“A record like hers is harder to nail down than, say, a judge who has lots of opinions,” one Republican staffer on the Senate Judiciary Committee said. “The debate is, or should be, really about the criteria.”The lack of a legal record would make it difficult for Republicans to criticize her on specific cases that constitute the legal records of other potential nominees who have served as lower court judges. Full story at LifeNews.com

New States Join Courtroom Revolt Against ObamaCare

An interesting story from www.lifesitenews.com more states joining the court challenge against Obamacare This follows this post about Bart Stupak attacking pro-life groups. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

New States Join Courtroom Revolt Against ObamaCare


By Peter J. Smith WASHINGTON, D.C., (LifeSiteNews.com) –
Five more U.S. states have now joined the attorneys general of a dozen other states in a lawsuit aimed at toppling the federal government’s new health care law. The states assert that portions of the health care legislation signed into law by President Obama on March 23 amounts to constitutional overreach that infringes on the right of states and individuals to manage their own affairs.
"We welcome the partnership of Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada and Arizona as we continue fighting to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens and the sovereignty of our states," said Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum in a statement.
“On behalf of the residents in Florida and the states joining our efforts, we are committed to aggressively pursuing this lawsuit to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary to prevent this unprecedented expansion of federal powers, impact upon state sovereignty, and encroachment on our freedom,” McCollum continued. The attorneys general of Alabama, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Nebraska, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington had already banded together with Florida to file a lawsuit against the federal government with the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The lawsuit contends that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) infringes upon the constitutional rights of the residents of states by forcing all citizens and legal residents to carry qualified health insurance or pay a financial penalty.
The states contend that the insurance mandate exceeds the limited scope of the powers granted to the federal government under Article I of the US Constitution. Furthermore, they assert that the tax penalty for not carrying insurance violates the prohibition against the direct taxation of individuals outlined in Article I, sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution. The suit also contends that the PPACA infringes on the sovereignty of the states guaranteed under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution by forcing the states to abide by new operating rules and mandating that they spend billions of dollars to support the new health care system, when they already face severe budget crises.
Virginia has also filed its own separate lawsuit against the federal government, reiterating many of the concerns of its fellow states. Virginia has already passed a state law that expressly forbids the government from mandating that citizens carry health insurance or pay a penalty. The addition of the five new states brings the total number of states involved in the Florida-led lawsuit against the federal government over ObamaCare to nineteen, including Virginia.
A hearing for scheduling the Florida-led suit is set to take place April 14, 2010 at 9 a.m. central time at the Federal Courthouse in Pensacola, Florida.

See related coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:
States Consider Legislative Plan to Opt-Out of ObamaCare’s Abortion Mandate http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/mar/10032609.html
U.S. Medical Society Sues to Overturn ObamaCare http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10040702.html
President Signs Health Care Bill into Law, 12 States Immediately Sue http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/mar/10032304.html

Bart Stupak Asked to Stop Attacking Pro-Life Groups on Pro-Abortion Health Care

An interesting story from http://www.lifenews.com about Bart Stupak attacking pro-life groups. This follows this post that shows the meaninglessness of the president's Executive Order. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Bart Stupak Asked to Stop Attacking Pro-Life Groups on Pro-Abortion Health Care
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Congressman Bart Stupak caused outrage within the pro-life community when he wrote an opinion column which appeared in the Washington Post on March 27. The article raised eyebrows as Stupak attacked pro-life organizations by saying they are more interested in politics than pro-life.
"The pro-life groups rallied behind me -- many without my knowledge or consent -- not necessarily because they shared my goals of ensuring protections for life and passing health-care reform but because they viewed me as their best chance to kill health-care legislation," Stupak wrote.
William Saunders, a vice president at Americans United for Life, issued a response to Stupak in an opinion column at the Daily Caller.
He said pro-life advocates were "deeply disappointed" to read Stupak's comments.
Stupak's column "contained an attack on the integrity of pro-life organizations, like mine, that fought to keep abortion out of health care reform" and "mischaracterized the bill and the executive order that President Obama signed."
Saying he had no desire to attack Stupak personally and admitting he didn't know the insider negotiations that led Stupak to vote for the pro-abortion health care bill, Saunders pointed out it would not have passed had Stupak and some of his pro-life Democratic colleagues not traded their votes for the executive order. Full story at LifeNews.com

Comprehensive USCCB Memo again Concludes: Abortion Executive Order Meaningless

An interesting story from http://www.lifesitenews.com about the executive order of Obamacare. This follows this post about polls that most Americans want it repealed. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Comprehensive USCCB Memo again Concludes: Abortion Executive Order Meaningless

By Kathleen Gilbert and John Jalsevac
WASHINGTON, D.C., April 1, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A detailed legal analysis from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops of the health care bill has reinforced the bishops' conclusion that the Executive Order that Rep. Stupak obtained in exchange for his vote does little to nothing to solve the abortion-related problems in the bill.
The USCCB memo concludes that “the Executive Order cannot and does not fix the statutory problems of direct funding of abortion at CHCs (Community Health Centers), and of funding insurance plans that cover abortions; it cannot and does not make up for the absence of conscience protections that are missing from the statute; and it does not strengthen the conscience protections that are there, though it could have in certain limited ways.”
It also points out that, “Where the Order purports to fix a shortcoming of the Act in these areas, it is highly likely to be legally invalid; and where the Order is highly likely to be legally valid, it does nothing to fix those shortcomings.”
In reference to the funding of CHCs, the memo points out that the bill (referred to as the PPACA in the memo) appropriates billions of dollars for the CHCs that could potentially be used to fund abortions.
Up until the passage of the health bill, the funding for the CHCs was governed by the Hyde amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother. However, the Democrats’ health bill introduces a new stream of funds that is not governed by Hyde. For this reason, says the USCCB, the “courts are highly likely to read PPACA to require the funding of abortions at CHCs in the absence of a statutory correction.”
In terms of federal funding of abortion, the USCCB memo points out that the health bill does not uphold Hyde-amendment restrictions, since, under Section 1303 of the bill, “tax credits are still used to pay overall premiums for health plans covering elective abortions.” In addition, they say, “This part of PPACA would also impose a serious burden on the consciences of millions of Americans."
"Any family having to buy such a subsidized plan—for example, because its coverage or provider network are necessary to meet the family’s health needs—will be forced by the Act to provide a separate payment, on a regular basis, solely to pay for other enrollees’ abortions.”
Any efforts that President Obama’s executive order purports to make to solve these problems, says the USCCB, are ultimately doomed to be struck down in court since the president “may not amend or otherwise contradict the legislative mandates expressed by Congress in the form of statutory law.” “Accordingly, if the President were to issue an Executive Order (and perhaps subsequent regulations) that purported to forbid the use of PPACA funds for abortions at CHCs, in a context where statutory terms like those describing the scope of CHC services have long been read by courts to require the use of the funds for that purpose, the Executive Order would almost certainly be struck down as exceeding the President’s authority," states the memo.
In reference to conscience protections, the USCCB memo points out five striking deficiencies, including most prominently the fact that the PPACA does not include the Welden amendment, which “forbids the federal government, or any state or local government receiving appropriated funds, from discriminating against any health care entity based on its refusal to participate in abortion.”
Hence, "the omission of the Weldon Amendment means that PPACA does not restrain government from discriminating on that basis."
The memo concludes, “Thus, the shortcomings of the Act remain, and correspondingly, the need for fixes remains. Only Congress, with the consent of the President, has the legal authority to make those fixes.
"Congress and the President should act promptly to do so; they should not await courts’ likely invalidation of the few provisions of the Executive Order that even purport to be fixes.”

Americans Want Pro-Abortion Health Care Law Repealed, Hope GOP Will Do It

An interesting story from http://www.lifenews.com about the contents of Obamacare. This follows this post about the anniversary of Terri Schiavo's death. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Americans Want Pro-Abortion Health Care Law Repealed, Hope GOP Will Do It
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) --
Two new national polls show Americans want the pro-abortion health care bill President Barack Obama signed into law repealed. They also show voters want Republican lawmakers to keep fighting against the government-run health care system and to promote legislation to repeal it.
Just before the House passed and Obama signed the health care bill that funds abortions, Americans opposed it on a 54-41 percentage point margin, according to Rasmussen.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the first two nights after the president signed the bill, shows 55 percent want the law repealed whiled 42 percent oppose that. Those figures include 46% who strongly favor repeal and 35% who strongly oppose it.
Republicans overwhelmingly favor repeal while most Democrats are opposed. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 59% favor repeal, and 35% are against it.
There is little divide between older and younger Americans as both favor a repeal of the pro-abortion health care law. Most senior citizens (59%) favor repeal but 58% of those 18 to 29 also support repealing it.
And when it comes to the November congressional elections, 52% say they'd vote for a candidate who favors repeal over one who does not. Forty-one percent would cast their vote for someone who opposes repeal.
Several states are already challenging the health care law in court and an earlier poll found 49 percent of Americans, a plurality of those polled, favor the lawsuits. Full story at LifeNews.com

ObamaCare Lowdown: What Exactly Will the Health Reform Bill Do?

An interesting story from http://www.lifesitenews.com about the contents of Obamacare. This follows this post about the anniversary of Terri Schiavo's death. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

ObamaCare Lowdown: What Exactly Will the Health Reform Bill Do?


By Kathleen Gilbert and Peter J. Smith
WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews.com) -

Now that President Obama has signed the Senate health care bill into law, pro-lifers and conservatives may still be wondering exactly what this massive piece of legislation will mean, not only for abortion, but other issues such as health care rationing, government expansion, a new health insurance mandate, and heavy taxation, including what amounts to a penalty for married couples. Following is a list of top concerns over the law as it stands.
Abortion Funding:
As compiled and explained by the National Right to Life Committee, several provisions in the bill present a major threat to the unborn through the expansion of funding for abortion.
- Separate funding stream bypasses Hyde amendment protections, Executive Order notwithstanding:
Backers of the Senate health care bill introduced to the House, H.R. 3590, have frequently dismissed pro-lifers' concerns over abortion funding in general. They have insisted that the current Hyde amendment, which bans Health and Human Services (HHS) funding of abortion except in cases of rape or threat to a mother's life, also applies.
Yet the language of the bill, as NRLC legal analysis points out, bypasses Hyde by creating a new direct-appropriation funding pipeline that lies outside of the annual appropriations process for the HHS Department.
Lawmakers' attempts to include explicit Hyde-like bans (Stupak amendment) were shot down repeatedly both in committee and the Senate floor. The Stupak-Pitts amendment sought to prevent federal subsidies from going to health plans that cover abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
Current restrictions in the health care bill say that federal funds cannot be used directly to pay for abortions; however that does not prevent federal dollars from propping up the bottom-line of insurance companies that can re-allocate private dollars to pay for abortions.
Although the Executive Order Obama signed following the bill's passage purports to apply the Hyde amendment to the bill, the White House's Robert Gibbs admitted that the president’s directive, revealingly titled "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's Consistency with Longstanding Restrictions on the Use of Federal Funds for Abortion," merely "reiterates" what is already in the bill, and does not address its inherent flaws.
- Direct funding of abortion through the Community Health Centers program: The new law directly appropriates $7 billion for Community Health Centers (CHCs) into a separate fund. Since the funding does not fall under annual HHS appropriations, it is therefore unconnected to any restriction on the use of these funds for abortion.
Some backers of H.R. 3590 have asserted that none of the 1,250 federally funded CHCs provide abortions; yet, the website of the Reproductive Health Access Project strongly assures CHC operators that offering abortions is not only possible, but "important for the health of your patient."
The President himself defended “reproductive care” – a term typically used to imply abortion services – as “essential care.” Without a legislative statute to the contrary, it is possible that a court challenge launched by pro-abortion groups could open up CHCs to provide abortion.
- Other direct appropriations not covered by abortion restrictions: The Senate bill contains additional pools of directly appropriated funds that are not covered by any limitations regarding abortion, including $5 billion for a temporary high-risk health insurance pool program (Sec. 1101 on pages 45-52) and $6 billion in grants and loans for health co-ops (Sec. 1322, pp. 169-180). Only bill-wide, permanent language, such as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, could have ensured that none of these funds are tapped by pro-abortion political appointees and bureaucrats to pay for abortion.
- Federally administered abortion plans: The bill would create a new program under which the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) would administer two or more national (“multi-state”) insurance plans. (See Section 1334.)
The bill provides that “at least one” such plan would be subject to limitations on abortion coverage. This implies that other federally administered plans could cover elective abortions, or perhaps even be required to do so by the federal administrator. This is a sharp break from longstanding federal policy, adopted by Congress, under which plans that participate in the OPM-administered Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program are prohibited from covering elective abortions.
Also, even the purported requirement (pages 2087-2088) that the OPM program offer one pro-life plan is rigged to expire each year; this requirement will remain in force only if pro-life forces prevail annually in preserving pro-life language on an unrelated annual appropriations bill.
- The "abortion surcharge": Section 1303, page 2069 of the bill contains the objectionable “Nelson-Boxer language,” under which private plans that cover elective abortion would qualify for the federal subsidy. However each enrollee in those plans that include abortion coverage would have to pay an "abortion surcharge" of at least one dollar per month. These funds would be used to pay for abortions.
This requirement applies to anyone who enrolls – or may have to enroll – in a subsidized plan that covers elective abortions. This will certainly include many people who would learn of the abortion surcharge only after enrolling, but who would also have no choice other than to pay the abortion surcharge, or see their entire health coverage lapse.
- Authorities for pro-abortion mandates: The new law contains a bewildering array of provisions that grant authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and other federal entities to issue binding regulations on various matters.
Some of these provisions could be employed in the future as carte blanche for the HHS to issue pro-abortion mandates, requiring health plans to cover abortion and/or provide expanded access to abortion, unless there is clear language to prevent it. For example, under the Mikulski Amendment (Section 1001, pp. 20-21), the HHS could force every private health plan to cover elective abortions merely by placing abortion on a list of “preventive” services.
While the Senate bill does contain some anti-mandate provisions, NRLC's analysis finds that these clauses are worded in such a way that they control only specific provisions of the bill (e.g., the reference to “essential health benefits” on page 2070), or are ambiguous in their scope.
- Open door to future abortion funding in Indian health programs: The Senate-passed health bill revamps and reauthorizes all Indian health programs. In the House bill, these programs were permanently barred from providing elective abortions by the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. But in the Senate bill, no such prohibition exists, other than a mere policy-neutral clause (Section 10221, pp. 2175-2176) that “punts” the abortion policy, requiring that it be set annually on an appropriations bill.
The Senate omitted the necessary pro-life language even though a permanent Hyde Amendment had won approval by the Senate the last time that the Indian health reauthorization (S. 1200) was on the Senate floor in amendable form. (The House never acted on S. 1200.)
- Missing abortion conscience language: The House-passed bill contained a codification of the “Hyde-Weldon” language (H.R. 3962, Section 259), which would prevent government actors from penalizing health care providers who refuse to participate in providing abortions.
However pro-abortion senators blocked its inclusion in the Senate bill. The so-called conscience protections in H.R. 3590 (e.g., on page 123) are exceedingly narrow.
Other issues:
- Health care rationing: NRLC's health care blog points out that "Section 3209 of the health care bill ... effectively allows federal bureaucrats at the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) of the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to bar senior citizens from adding their own money, if they choose, to the government contribution in order to get private-fee-for-service Medicare Advantage (MA) plans less likely to ration life-saving treatment."
What this amounts to, according to NRLC, is that "doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers will be told by Washington just what diagnostic tests and medical care is considered to meet 'quality' and 'efficiency' standards – not only for federally funded health care programs like Medicare, but also for health care paid for by private citizens and their nongovernmental health insurance.”
“Treatment that a doctor and patient in consultation deem needed or advisable to save that patient's life or preserve or improve the patient's health but which the government decides is too costly – even if the patient is willing and able to pay for it – will run afoul of the imposed standards. In effect, there will be one uniform national standard of care, established by Washington bureaucrats and set with a view to limiting what private citizens are allowed to spend on saving their own lives." Read more from the NRLC on health care rationing in H.R. 3590 here.
- Setup for government-run health insurance: The National Review's Veronique de Rugy posits a simple scenario of how the ObamaCare health insurance mandate could quickly dissolve into a single-payer system. Despite repeated denials, Obama declared support for single-payer in a 2003 speech to the AFL-CIO.
De Rugy points out that citizens, faced with a choice between expensive health insurance and a cheaper fine for failing to buy it, will "just get insurance once they need it, since people who are sick can no longer be denied health-care coverage."
Health insurance companies would, in turn, quickly buckle under the weight of the health needs of new customers - revenue would continue to dry up when newly-recovered patients simply drop the insurance again. "In this worst-case scenario, the government will use the opportunity, or as Rahm Emanuel likes to say, won't let the crisis go to waste, and will likely jump in and take over the insurance business," she writes.
- Health insurance mandate: At least 14 state attorneys general have filed suit against the federal government for a provision in the new law that mandates U.S. citizens to buy health insurance – or face a fine. Many believe the provision to be patently unconstitutional, as the Commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution has never been used to regulate “economic inactivity” by forcing people to buy a product. Some analysts say that if that premise is accepted, then Congress can theoretically force individuals to buy other products as well.
- Widescale job loss effective immediately: Several news outlets are already reporting that the new taxes imposed by the health care reform law are forcing companies to slash health care plans or raise premiums on their workers.
According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, many S&P 500 businesses announced this week that health care legislation was forcing them to declare $4.5 billion in lost earnings.
Since taxes kicked in the first quarter, companies have had to adjust revenue earnings in order to pay for the health care bill’s new taxes that go into effect. AT&T reported a $1 billion tax hike, John Deere reported $150 million, and Caterpillar recorded $100 million.
The reason for this is that the government previously offered a tax refund of about $650 per retiree in order to keep Medicare Part D costs down. The new law, while it continues federal subsidies for Part D, does not allow companies to write off the cost as tax free anymore.
- The marriage penalty: A Wall Street Journal column pointed out in January that both the House and Senate versions of the health care reform legislation would force married couples to pay "thousands of dollars more for the same health insurance coverage as unmarried people living together." The penalty results from the fact that guidelines for qualifying for health insurance subsidies rely on federal poverty guidelines; therefore, married couples would be at a disadvantage for receiving subsidies due to their combined income.
In effect, the law helps make pre-marital co-habitation look financially more attractive than marriage.

Five Years Later, Pro-Life Leaders Remember Terri Schiavo's Murder

An interesting story from http://www.lifesitenews.com about Terri Shiavo's death. This follows this post about attempts to do away with the pro-abortion health care bill. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Five Years Later, Pro-Life Leaders Remember Terri Schiavo's Murder


By Kathleen Gilbert
PINELLAS PARK, Florida, (LifeSiteNews.com) -
On the fifth anniversary of the court-ordered death by starvation and dehydration of Terri Schindler Schiavo, Terri’s family, pro-life leaders and anti-euthanasia advocates have united to call attention to the silent abuse of people with disabilities, and the new dangers posed by the recently-passed federal health care reform legislation.
The Christian Defense Coalition, Faith and Action and Generation Life announced they will pray and leave a single rose on the public sidewalk in front of the Pennsylvania Ave. NW side of the White House to commemorate Terri's death. The groups also reminded Americans that President Obama later called it a "mistake" that, as a U.S. Senator, he had supported Congress' decision to try to save Terri from death.
"End of life issues are a deep concern in this new health care legislation," said Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition and one of the leaders who worked to save Terri's life in Florida, in a press release Tuesday.
"Simply put, how can the American public trust the President and his Administration to deal compassionately with end of life issues when he considered it a 'mistake' to have intervened in attempting to keep a young woman from being starved and dehydrated?"
"Nothing arrested the conscience of the nation like Terri's suffering and needless death," said Rev. Rob Schenck, President of Faith and Action. "Now, she continues her ministry by provoking us all to appreciate and value the worth and dignity of brain injury victims."
Generation Life director Brandi Swindell, who engaged in a 14-day hunger strike while Terri was starved, said that, "as a young woman, my heart broke every day outside of Terri's room thinking about the pain and suffering she was experiencing."
"As a nation, we must offer the most needy of our society compassion, dignity and justice. Regrettably, we forced Terri to die the most painful and barbaric of deaths," said Swindell. "My hope is that we have learned valuable lessons from Terri's death and how we treat the disabled. Those lessons must be founded on equality and human rights for all."
Terri's father, Bob Schindler, did not live to see the fifth anniversary of his daughter's death: the family mourned Mr. Schindler's death of heart failure in August. Terri's mother, Mary Schindler, is still living.
Another blow was delivered to Terri's family earlier this month when an episode of FOX's "Family Guy" mocked the death of their loved one in an episode entitled "Terri Schiavo: The Musical." The show depicted Terri hooked up to various life-support systems and declared her a "vegetable," when in reality Terri required nothing more than a feeding tube and was awake and responsive at the time of her death. Bobby Schindler, Terri's brother and founder of the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation, said the episode left him "astonished at the producer’s cruel bigotry directed towards my sister and all cognitively disabled people."
"I wish I could say things have changed for the better since my sister’s death or that people with cognitive disabilities are now better protected in response to the horror she had to endure," said Schindler in an article for Townhall.com Wednesday. "Tragically, however, it seems the rights of the brain-injured, elderly and others are still being violated."
While "the 'death panels' Sarah Palin spoke of sounded like bombastic language," he noted, "many hospitals and facilities already have something frighteningly similar." "Ethics committees are making many life and death decisions about patients, including whether to withhold simple provisions," he said. "In a seemingly clandestine way, these ethics committees – comprised of medical and legal professionals – are empowering facilities to make life and death decisions independent of the family or a person’s own wishes.
"The chilling stories we receive make it clear few citizens have any idea how vulnerable they are when it comes to judgments left in the hands of these ethics committees and facilities," he said. "And with the federal government now controlling our health care, there is no reason not to believe that these types of committees won’t become nationalized. Particularly when a health care system has been sabotaged by cost factors and quality of life judgments."
Schindler expressed concern with the health care rationing that now looms on a national scale following passage of the federal health care bill.
"I think it's very easy to see people like my sister in the crosshairs," Schindler told LifeSiteNews.com in an interview Wednesday.
"These types of ethics committees are going to become nationalized ... it seems to me that it comes down to cost," he said. "Look at assisted suicide - think about the cost of handing somebody some pills to kill themselves, compared to the cost of perhaps giving them the availability of prolonging their lives, if they do have some type of terminal illness."
Schindler pointed out the danger of allowing an administration filled with people who "have no regard for the value of life" to dictate the guidelines for health care on a wide scale. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, whose office is granted sweeping new powers and responsibilities in determining health care guidelines by the new health care legislation, is radically pro-abortion.
"The health care reform is going to reflect their values," said Schindler. "If we have an administration that doesn't value life, then how can we expect it to value life when it comes to whether or not they should care for people like my sister?"
Dr. Mark Mostert of the Institute for the Study of Disabilities & Bioethics commemorated Terri's "legalized medical execution" on his blog Tuesday.
"[H]ere we are five years later. Disability groups trash the Schindlers. The President of the United States thinks intervening to help avoid Terri’s execution was a mistake," wrote Mostert. "Now what?
"Here’s what: Never, ever, let Terri’s memory and her martyrdom be forgotten."
Terri's Life and Hope Concert, featuring Randy Travis and Collin Raye, will be held on April 11th in Indianapolis, Indiana. The concert will benefit the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to helping persons with disabilities, and the incapacitated, who are in or potentially facing life-threatening situations.
Click here for information on Terri's Life and Hope Concert.
Click here to read Fr. Pavone's National Catholic Register column.
Click here to read Bobby Schindler's Townhall.com column.

Lawsuit and Repeal Efforts Move Forward After Pro-Abortion Health Care Passes

An interesting story from http://www.lifenews.com about attempts to do away with the pro-abortion health care bill. This follows this post about Bart Stupak and the real pro-life Democrats. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Lawsuit and Repeal Efforts Move Forward After Pro-Abortion Health Care PassesWashington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- With the House passing the pro-abortion health care bill Sunday night and President Barack Obama pledging to sign it into law on Tuesday, pro-life groups, state attorneys general and Republican lawmakers are moving forward with plans to file lawsuits against the bill and repeal it in the next Congress.
Once Obama signs the bill into law, the lawsuits will begin from all corners.
Attorneys General from Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota and several other states have already announced plans to file suits against the health care law.
"The health care reform legislation passed by the U. S. House of Representatives this evening clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state's sovereignty," Florida's Attorney General Bill McCollum announced. "If the President signs this bill into law, we will file a lawsuit to protect the rights and the interests of American citizens."
Leading pro-life groups will join them as officials from the American Center for Law and Justice are already preparing suit.
“This health care package fails the American people and does not provide permanent protections for the life of the unborn,” Jay Sekulow, the ACLJ chief counsel, told LifeNews.com today.
“This flawed health care package may have passed - but it is far from being implemented," Sekulow explained. Full story at LifeNews.com

Can You Believe the Bible?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the truth of the Bible. This follows this post about Mass Media and Prophecy. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.
Click here to get this free book.

Can You Believe the Bible?
Both God and the Bible have long been under attack. What are some of the motives of critics? And, far more important, what does the evidence dug from the dust of the Middle East reveal?
by Scott Ashley
Beyond Today Web TV
Is the Bible True?
Related Articles
Can You Prove the Bible Is True?
Isn't It About Time You Read the Book?
Learn, Live and Love the Bible
A crucial battle is taking place in Western culture—a battle over God and the Bible. To boil that conflict down to its essence, many people don't like the idea of having someone tell them what to do, so they reject the idea of a God who has any say in how they are to live.
Some famous evolutionists have openly admitted as much. The well-known author and evolution proponent Aldous Huxley, for example, wrote: "I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . .
"Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their [purpose] that the world should be meaningless" (Ends and Means, 1938, p. 270).
"For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was . . . liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom . . ." (ibid., p. 273).
Julian Huxley, brother of Aldous Huxley and also a leading proponent of evolution, later wrote: "The sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a super-human being is enormous" (Essays of a Humanist, 1964, p. 219).
Of course, those who reject the idea of God also have to reject the idea that the Bible is true and could be His inspired Word. It's no coincidence that the Bible has been essentially banned from U.S. classrooms.
What does the evidence reveal?
But what do the facts show? Can we believe the Bible? What does the evidence—the historical facts dug up from the dirt of the Middle East—reveal? For those willing to examine it objectively, the evidence is quite clear that the Bible is accurate and true.
The books of the Bible have existed for millennia—the youngest around 1,900 years and the oldest around 3,500. In recording events of the time, they mention many specific details—people, places, cities, towns, customs and events. When the Bible began to be translated into more modern languages in recent centuries, virtually no independent evidence had been found to support the biblical story.
Yes, historians knew of the empires of Greece and Rome and of their rulers as mentioned in the Bible, but little else was known. Even as late as the 19th century, when criticism of and disbelief in the Bible began to take hold, it was easy to dismiss the Bible because scant supporting evidence had been found.
But with the emergence of the science of archaeology, that soon changed. As scholars and archaeologists explored and excavated ancient sites, they began to uncover abundant evidence that supported the accuracy of the Bible.
Since then entire empires that were unknown outside the Bible have been brought to light. Inscriptions or other artifacts mentioning specific people in the Bible, ranging from kings to court officials to common people, have been uncovered.
Cities and strongholds mentioned in Scripture have risen from the dust. Many events recorded in the Bible, and even minor details such as customs mentioned in passing, have been confirmed by independent discoveries. Even specific buildings and structures mentioned in Scripture have been identified!
In late 2006 I was privileged to visit one of the world's great historical treasure-houses, the Istanbul Archaeology Museum. From the 16th century until the end of World War I, the Ottoman Empire ruled much of the Middle East from its capital in present-day Turkey. During that period many priceless archaeological pieces made their way from the far reaches of the empire to the Ottoman rulers in Istanbul. Eventually more than a million artifacts were gathered in the museum.
Several items on display confirm people, customs and events mentioned in the Bible. Although we don't have space to cover all of them, we'll discuss some of the most notable.
Did the Hittites really exist?
For centuries the only known references to Hittites were those found in the Bible. Because of this, some Bible critics assumed they were simply invented, just one of many myths in the Bible. After all, they reasoned, how could an entire culture and people have existed and not left any physical evidence behind?
The Hittites are mentioned in connection with the patriarch Abraham in Genesis 23 where he purchased a cave from Ephron the Hittite to use as a burial place for his beloved wife Sarah. (Abraham himself would later be buried there.)
Later Abraham's grandson Esau married two Hittite women (Genesis 26:34), and still later the Hittites were among the peoples God promised to drive out so the Israelites could inherit the Promised Land (Exodus 23:28; 33:2; 34:11). King Solomon later married Hittite women (1 Kings 11:1), probably as part of political alliances with Hittite rulers. The Hittites were still an influential power in the time of Elisha around 840 B.C. (see 2 Kings 7:6). But did they really exist?
As the lands of the Middle East were later explored, particularly in what is today central Turkey where the Hittite empire was centered, archaeologists found abundant evidence of the existence of the Hittites. Their findings correlated with the mentions of the Hittites in the Bible.
Their empire had existed for centuries alongside the other peoples mentioned in the Scriptures—at times waxing and at other times waning alongside other kingdoms and empires such as Syria, Egypt and Assyria before diminishing and eventually disappearing not long after their last mention in the Bible.
Ashtoreth (Astarte), goddess of fertility
A major sin mentioned again and again in the Old Testament was idolatry and the worship of foreign gods. God repeatedly condemned the worship of Baal and Ashtoreth, the primary male and female deities of the Canaanites and other surrounding peoples.
Baal and Ashtoreth were the primary god and goddess of fertility. As such, their worship typically involved ritual sex with a priest or priestess, for which an offering was given. This essentially amounted to sex for pay, which is why the Bible often equates worship of these gods and goddesses with prostitution.
The common name of the goddess in Babylonia and Mesopotamia was Ishtar, which survives today in the name of the holiday Easter. Her name among the nations around Israel was Astarte, but the biblical writers apparently deliberately distorted the name to Ashtoreth to make it sound like the Hebrew word for "shame"—as indeed the way she was worshipped, involving sex with her priests and priestesses, was degrading and shameful.
Small figurines of this and other fertility goddesses are commonly found in Israel and the surrounding countries, clear evidence of the popularity of such worship. Worship of this goddess is mentioned from soon after the death of Joshua in Judges 2:13 (ca. 1210 B.C.) until the reign of King Josiah in 2 Kings 23:13 (ca. 640 B.C.).
Assyria devastates the kingdom of Israel
As a result of the sins of idolatry and rejecting God's laws over several centuries, and their absolute refusal to repent, God warned the Israelites that since they refused to serve Him in their own land, they would serve other gods in foreign lands. He began to punish them through the Assyrian Empire, a new superpower emerging in what is today the country of Iraq.
The Bible records a whole series of Assyrian kings who made war on Israel, and archaeologists have uncovered abundant evidence testifying to the existence of these same kings. Their capital cities, palaces, archives and in some cases even their portraits and statues have been found. Much of this material is in the great museums of Europe, but evidence of these kings is also displayed in the Istanbul Archaeology Museum.
Tiglath-Pileser III
We find the names of the first two Assyrian kings mentioned in the Bible inscribed on a stone stele commemorating the achievements of a high Assyrian official named Bel-harran-beli-usur. He served in the royal court of Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727 B.C.) and Shalmaneser V (727-722 B.C.). The inscription describes how he served in the court of these two Assyrian kings and founded a city he named after himself.
This same Tiglath-Pileser is referred to by a shortened form of his name, Pul, in 2 Kings 15:19-20, which states that he received tribute money from the Israelite King Menahem (ca. 743 B.C.). Exacting tribute was a common practice at the time. It amounted to extortion on a national scale since the Assyrians would invade and plunder the land, destroying its cities and enslaving its inhabitants, if the Israelites didn't pay this protection money.
Around 734 B.C., as recorded in verse 29, the Israelite King Pekah rebelled against Tiglath-Pileser, who invaded Israel and took thousands of its people captive to other faraway territories. At the same time Ahaz, king of Judah, stripped the temple of its gold and silver and emptied the national treasury to enlist the Assyrian king's help in fighting against Pekah and the king of Syria (2 Kings 16:5-9). Syria, like Israel, was devastated by the Assyrian invasion.
Shalmaneser V
Tiglath-Pileser died in 727 B.C. and was succeeded by Shalmaneser V. Picking up the story in 2 Kings 17:3, we learn that Shalmaneser marched against the Israelite King Hoshea, who paid him off with tribute. A few years later Shalmaneser returned and besieged Israel's capital, Samaria, for three years before its fall in 722 B.C., then exiled the remaining Israelites to other Assyrian-controlled territories (verses 5-6).
This marked the end of the kingdom of Israel; its exiled people would then lose their identity and become known in history as "the lost 10 tribes."
Sargon II
The next Assyrian monarch mentioned in Scripture is Shalmaneser's successor, Sargon II (722-705 B.C.), who had been Shalmaneser's field commander in the conquest of Samaria. Sargon is mentioned in Isaiah 20:1, which refers to him sending one of his generals in 712 B.C. to capture the Philistine city of Ashdod on the Mediterranean coast west of Jerusalem.
Sargon, while marching against other kingdoms around Judah, did not attack Judah itself—apparently honoring the alliance the Judean king Ahaz had forged with Tiglath-Pileser several years earlier.
Sennacherib
After Sargon died in 705 B.C., Sennacherib (705-682 B.C.) followed him on the throne. Sennacherib is mentioned prominently in Scripture, chiefly for his invasion of the kingdom of Judah in 701 B.C. during the reign of Hezekiah. The Bible records this invasion in 2 Kings 18:13–19:37, 2 Chronicles 32:1-22 and Isaiah 36–37.
Hezekiah refused to pay the oppressive tribute his father Ahaz had paid, prompting Sennacherib's campaign against Judah. Both the Bible and Sennacherib's archives record that the Assyrians captured virtually all of the Judean kingdom save its capital, Jerusalem. Hezekiah initially paid off the Assyrian king with tribute, but was only delivered by a great miracle—the divine destruction of the Assyrian army outside the walls of Jerusalem (2 Kings 19:35).
Sennacherib, defeated and humiliated, returned to his capital where he was later assassinated by his own sons.
Hezekiah's tunnel inscription
While it is fairly common to find inscriptions or other evidence of specific individuals and places mentioned in the Bible, it's much rarer to find archaeological verification of specific events recorded in Scripture. Events by their nature are transitory and seldom recorded in ways that can survive the ravages of time. Yet proof of an event from the reign of Hezekiah is on display in the Istanbul Archaeology Museum.
In 2 Kings 20:20 we read the following about King Hezekiah: "Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah—all his might, and how he made a pool and a tunnel and brought water into the city—are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?"
Today visitors to Jerusalem can walk through this very tunnel by which Hezekiah's engineers managed to divert the normal flow of the Gihon Spring, which normally flowed outside the city, by carving a tunnel under the city so the water would flow to a pool inside the city walls.
The 1,750-foot tunnel, constructed in or about the year 701 B.C., is one of the great engineering marvels of the ancient world. Discovered by the famed American archaeologist Edward Robinson in 1838, the tunnel yielded up a secret to its method of construction in 1880 when an Arab boy found an ancient Hebrew inscription carved on the tunnel wall describing how two teams of men, working from opposite ends, tunneled toward each other to meet in the middle. The inscription was later removed to Istanbul by order of the Ottoman rulers of the city.
Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon
After the miraculous destruction of Sennacherib's army during Hezekiah's reign, Assyria never again invaded Judah. Assyria, from that point forward, was on the wane as a new empire rose to become the superpower in the Middle East—Babylon.
The greatest ruler of the Babylonian Empire is a figure well known to Bible readers, King Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled from 605 to 562 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar is mentioned 88 times in the Bible, in the books of 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel.
Nebuchadnezzar marched on the kingdom of Judah multiple times. The first was in 605 B.C. when he drove an Egyptian army out of Syria back to Egypt as part of his overthrow of the Assyrian Empire. The next was when Judah's King Jehoiakim refused to pay tribute to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar stripped the Jerusalem temple of many of its valuables and took them back to Babylon.
After subsequent rebellions, Nebuchadnezzar resolved to put a permanent end to the problem. After a siege of about two years, Jerusalem fell in 586 B.C. and the city, including its walls and temple, were utterly destroyed. Nearly all the remaining Jews in the land were then taken away captive to Babylon where they would stay until the fall of Babylon decades later.
Many Babylonian records have been found detailing Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Many of the Bible's mentions of him are found in the book of Daniel, as Daniel interacted with Nebuchadnezzar as a high-ranking official in the king's government.
Daniel 4:30 records how at one point Nebuchadnezzar boasted, "Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for a royal dwelling by my mighty power and for the honor of my majesty?" And Babylon truly was magnificent, one of the major cities of the ancient world for many centuries.
One of its most notable features was the Ishtar Gate, named for the goddess Ishtar discussed earlier, and the processional way leading up to it. The actual gate itself has been reconstructed in Berlin, where the German archaeologists who excavated it rebuilt it using the original brightly colored glazed bricks.
However, parts of the processional way leading up to the gate can be seen today in the Istanbul Museum. It's truly an amazing experience to see parts of the elaborate decorations of ancient Babylon that Nebuchadnezzar and the prophet Daniel had no doubt walked past many times.
Bel/Marduk, chief god of Babylon
The primary god of Babylon, Marduk, also called Bel, was represented by a dragon prominently displayed in the processional way. The prophet Jeremiah, in foretelling the downfall of Babylon, twice mentions this particular Babylonian god:
"The word that the Lord spoke against Babylon and against the land of the Chaldeans by Jeremiah the prophet. "Declare among the nations . . . " Babylon is taken, Bel is shamed. Merodach [Marduk] is broken in pieces; her [ Babylon's] idols are humiliated, her images are broken in pieces"'" (Jeremiah 50:1-2).
"I will punish Bel in Babylon, and I will bring out of his mouth what he has swallowed; and the nations shall not stream to him anymore. Yes, the wall of Babylon shall fall" (Jeremiah 51:44).
Indeed Babylon did fall in 539 B.C., 47 years after Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed Jerusalem. The Babylonian Empire was succeeded by the Medo-Persian Empire, which in turn was followed by the Greco-Macedonian Empire of Alexander the Great and his successors, and then by the Roman Empire—all as foretold in the book of Daniel.
"To the unknown god"
From New Testament times we find two items in particular that relate to the apostle Paul and events from his life. Acts 17:22-23 tells us that when Paul visited Athens, he "stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you . . .'"
This particular area of Athens was surrounded by temples and shrines to the various gods and goddesses the Greeks and Romans worshipped. Major temples to Zeus and Athena stood there, as well as altars and shrines to various lesser deities. To be sure that they had all their bases covered, the Athenians also had an altar inscribed, "to the Unknown God" for any they may have inadvertently left out.
Several such inscriptions and shrines have been found among ruins of the ancient Roman Empire. Three are on display in the Istanbul Archaeology Museum, all dedicated "to the nameless god"—i.e., a god whose name they did not know. These came from other cities in the Roman Empire, so it wasn't just Athens that had an altar and inscription like this.
Warning sign from the temple
Acts 21 records an event from Paul's life that set in motion the chain of events that would lead to his arrest, his appearances before two Roman governors, his fateful journey to Rome and his confinement there.
Paul and several companions were in Jerusalem at the temple when a tumult broke out that almost cost Paul his life. Verses 27-32 vividly capture the events:
"The Jews from Asia [the Roman province in what is now western Turkey], seeing him [Paul] in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, crying out, "Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place; and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.' (For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)
"And all the city was disturbed; and the people ran together, seized Paul, and dragged him out of the temple; and immediately the doors were shut. Now as they were seeking to kill him, news came to the commander of the garrison that all Jerusalem was in an uproar. He immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down to them. And when they saw the commander and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul."
Paul barely escaped with his life, and likely would've been killed had the Roman military commander nearby not intervened and rescued him.
So what was this uproar about? As we read here, they wanted to kill Paul because they thought he had defiled the temple by bringing gentiles into a part of the temple complex where only Israelites were allowed to go. This was something the Jews had originated, going far beyond anything God had instructed.
We see stark evidence of this attitude in a carved warning sign from the temple, one of many that were erected at regular intervals along a five-foot-high barrier wall in the temple area in the time of Jesus and the apostles. Two of these have been found, a partial one on display in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem and a complete one discovered in Jerusalem under Ottoman rule and shipped to Istanbul.
Originally these were white with the inscribed letters painted in red to make them stand out. The sign warns: "No gentile is allowed beyond this barrier in the plaza of the temple zone. Whoever enters will have himself to blame for his ensuing death."
Gentiles were allowed in the outer courtyard of the temple, but the area beyond that was restricted to Israelites only. If you were a gentile, to go beyond that was considered defiling the temple, an offense punishable by death. In Paul's case, His Jewish religious opponents thought he had brought a gentile beyond that barrier, thus defiling the temple, and were about to kill him when the Roman military force intervened and rescued him.
Later, when Paul was under house arrest in Rome awaiting trial, he was likely reflecting back on this event when he wrote to the church in Ephesus that Jesus Christ "has broken down the middle wall of separation" between Jews and gentiles, "reconcil[ing] them both to God in one body," the Church, through His sacrificial death (Ephesians 2:14-16).
The term "middle wall of separation," most commentators agree, refers to the barrier in the temple complex beyond which gentiles could not go, the same one in which these warning signs were imbedded.
More evidence available for viewing
A battle is indeed being waged in Western culture over God and the Bible. This article covers some of the evidence from one museum in Turkey. You could visit several others around the world displaying similar finds that verify many other parts of the Bible—the British Museum in London, the Louvre in Paris, the Pergamon Museum in Berlin, the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago and the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, among others.
Oddly enough, those who argue against the Bible typically say that those of us who believe in it base our beliefs in ignorance and superstition. But in reality, once one seriously examines the evidence, the truth is the opposite. It's those who don't believe the Bible who show that their beliefs are based in superstition and ignorance.
Often they've simply never seriously looked at the evidence and in many cases seem unaware that such things as those described in this article even exist. But you need not be ignorant. You certainly can believe the Bible. Its accuracy has been proven time and time again, and continues to be proven year after year as archaeologists and scholars continue their work digging up history in the lands of the Bible. GN
Recommended Reading

The Good News published a 24-part series of articles titled "The Bible and Archaeology" that goes through the Bible book by book, showing how archaeological finds confirm and illuminate the biblical record. While not in print, this series can be downloaded at www.gnmagazine.org/archaeology/ . Be sure to also download or request our free booklet Is the Bible True?, which examines other scientific evidence showing that the Bible truly is the inspired Word of God