Is Planned Parenthood Worse than ISIS?

South Dakota State Representative Isaac Laterell (R-Sioux Falls) recently created a firestorm when he said that Planned Parenthood was worse than ISIS because it Planned Parenthood beheads more Americans in a month than ISIS has during its entire existence. He was referring to a D&E (dilation & evacuation or extraction) abortion. Naturally Planned Parenthood has denied they do any of this type of abortion that dismember the unborn child. However South Dakota Department of Health records show something entirely different. Their website shows that a handful of D&E abortions have been performed in the state since at least 2008. Add to that that the only abortion clinic in SD is the Planned Parenthood clinic & it is clear that, as usual, Planned Parenthood is lying.

But that hasn't stopped the Pro-abortion reporters & bloggers from jumping on the PP support bandwagon & attacking Representative Laterell as a liar. (For example: here, here & here) They not only repeat the PP lie, they deny that abortion is murder in the 1st place, despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary. Don't forget, these are the same people who support Obama when he denies that ISIS is a terrorist group as well.

But is Planned Parenthood worse than ISIS? Or merely just as evil? The short answer is, Planned Parenthood is worse. Here is why I say that.

To start with I want to share a Scripture reason that is the basis for what I am about to say to prove my point. Jesus said: "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; fear him rather who can destroy both body and soul in hell." (Matthew 10:28 The Jerusalem Bible) This quote is taking from a section of the Gospel where Jesus is talking about the persecution & possible martyrdom His followers will face.

It is obvious that ISIS is merely destroying the body. Pope Tawadros II head of the Coptic Church recently declared that the 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians killed by ISIS in Libya were martyrs & will now be recognised as saints in the Coptic Church. Pope Francis also said they were martyrs because they had their "throats slit for the sole reason of  being Christians." (Note: this does not mean that they are officially recognized as saints by the Catholic Church.)

If all Planned Parenthood did was kill unborn babies then they would be equal, not worse, than ISIS. But what Planned Parenthood does goes far beyond what ISIS does.

Planned Parenthood openly advocates premarital sex. It encourages young people to use condoms & other forms of birth control to have "safe sex". It also supports & promotes homosexual marriage & sex acts.

Unfortunately that goes contrary to the purpose for which God intended sex. He intended it to be between a man & a woman, & only after they were married. Any other form of sex, including masturbation (something else Planned Parenthood promotes), runs contrary to God's plan. Those acts are also mortal sins. That means that if a person dies unrepentant of those sins, he or she will spend eternity in Hell. In short the end result is the destruction of both body & soul in Hell.

Additionally abortion is murder & also a mortal sin. While not every woman willingly has an abortion, many are pressured into it by a parent, the father or others & thus not fully culpable. But even so abortion does emotional & spiritual damage to those involved, & not only the woman involved. Fathers & other family members are affected as well. That is why groups like Rachel's Vineyard, Project Rachel, Fatherhood Forever & Silent No More Awareness exist. They were founded to bring God's forgiveness & healing to those harmed by abortion.

ISIS can merely harm the body. Planned Parenthood can harm both the body & soul, not only here on Earth, but ensuring eternity in hell for those who buy what they sell & die unrepentant.

Planned Parenthood is a part of the demonic "culture of death." As I pointed out, much of what they claim are lies. They serve the "father of lies," Satan. Satan's goal, as well as that of Planned Parenthood & the rest of the abortion industry who serve him, is to destroy as many souls as possible. 

Representative Latterell was right in calling Planned Parenthood worse than ISIS. He spoke the truth. But what he may not have realized is how much more there was to that truth beyond what he intended to say.

Dr. Jack Wilke 5 April 1925-20 February 2015

The Pro-life movement lost a truly great man last Friday, Dr. Jack Wilke. Originally an obstetrician, he became the father of the Pro-life movement. He began travelling across country with his wife Barbara in the 60s. In 1988 he retired from his practice to devote himself full time to pro-life work.
In 1971 he published his 1st book, Handbook on Abortion, co-written with his wife Barbara. Over the years the book was revised & expanded in 1975 & 1979. It went through 24 printings. It was also translated into 10 languages. It was the handbook, or bible for the Pro-life movement
In 1985 it was replaced with Abortion: Question & Answers. It used the most up to date information & soon achieved the same status of its predecessor. It was revised in 1985, 1989 & 1991. It was translated into 20 languages.
In 1997 they came out with a new book that retained part of its predecessor's name but also added new emphasis. It was called Abortion Questions & Answers: Why Not Love Them Both. That book has also been revised over the years & was again translated into many other languages. It proved a worthy successor to the earlier books.
From 1984 to 1991 he was the president of the National Right to Life Committee. He was also a founding member & president emeritus of the International Right to Life. In 1991 he co-founded Life Issues Institute with Bradley Mattes. It was started to provide updated information as  well as the latest & best ways to provide people with the information & the Pro-life message as a whole. Dr. Wilke continued working, speaking & appearing on radio & TV to spread the Pro-life message. His wife passed away in April 203.
Lest this sound just like an impersonal obituary, I have to add something about the effect his work has had on me.
I 1st read his book Handbook on Abortion in the 80s. At the time I wasn't that familiar with Planned Parenthood & how they operated, let alone its founder Margaret Sanger. What I read was a real eye opener. What I read made me all the more determined to fight for life & to get out the truth about Sanger & her organization.
The book talked about Sanger's eugenics views & her work to eliminate those whom she saw as unfit mainly through eugenic sterilization. Who did she consider unfit? "Black people, Jews, Southern European immigrants (especially Italians*), but also others of 'low I.Q.' These 'feebleminded' people where a menace to the race.'"
What stopped me in my tracks was what she said about Southern European immigrants & those from Italia in particular. My maternal grandparents & one pair of my maternal great-grandparents were from Southern Italy. I realized that if Sanger had gotten her way, I would never have been born. At that point the battle became very personal. Over the years, especially through this blog & more recently via Facebook & Twitter, I have done my best to get the information about the real, racist goals of the abortion industry out.
Over the years, his writings & work through the Life Issues Institute have provided me with many tools to use in my Pro-life work.
Dr. Wilke has done much to save the lifes of the unborn & spread the entire Pro-life message. But now his work is done & he has entered into his rest.
Thank Dr. Wilke for a job well done.


*Emphasis mine

Sources:  Father of the pro-life movement Dr. Jack Willke passed away Friday

Dr. Jack Willke, Father of the Modern Pro-Life Movement, Passes Away

Huge Setback for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland's Telemed Abortion Scheme

 Polk County District Judge Jeffrey Farrell upheld the ban on telemed abortions (webcam abortions) that the Iowa Board of Medicine imposed last year. It was imposed based on FDA protocol for the use of RU-486 aka Mifeprex, the primary drug. The protocol call for a doctor to be actually be present:
“Mifeprex may be administered only in a clinic, medical office, or hospital, by or under the supervision of a physician, able to assess the gestational age of an embryo and to diagnose ectopic pregnancies. Physicians must also be able to provide surgical intervention in cases of incomplete abortion or severe bleeding, or have made plans to provide such care through others, and be able to assure patient access to medical facilities equipped to provide blood transfusions and resuscitation, if necessary.”
As it was being done by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland (PPH), a minimal exam was done by a nurse that basically consisted of a sonogram. The sonogram was e-mailed to the PPH doctor in Des Moines. Then after a short talk with the woman via Skype about the drugs, the PPH doctor in Des Moines pressed a button that opened a drawer with the 2 drugs used. The 2nd drug was taken at home a few days later & rarely was there a followup as required by the protocols. (Note: I am assuming that that minimal exam etc, was followed based on their sides claims. Given their track record of covering up rape, etc, I am not sure how accurate that even that minimal claim of what they do is accurate.
Many concerns were raised about this dangerous disregard for the safety of women. On 28 August 2013 the Iowa Board of Medicine held a public hearing on the regulation of telemed abortions that I, along with many other Pro-lifers from Dubuque attended. 1 of those who spoke was Marian Bourek, executive director of Dubuque County Right to Life (DCRTL).  Marian had spent 2 terms as a lay member of the board. She talked about the use of dangerous chemicals for the women where "there was not a patient-doctor relationship for the woman."  She went on to add "If Planned Parenthood, or any doctor, truly cares about women they would follow the FDA recommendations and not use the procedure at all."
The hearings were set up to allow each side to take turns. It was interesting to watch how it was a few of the pro-abortion supporters that tried to speak out of turn, especially from their seat in the audience. The Board quickly put an end to those attempts.
As I listened to what the telemed abortion supporters said, I got very upset with some of the lies & half-truths they said. I didn't get up to speak in response to what they said. However, I did submit a written statement addressing those claims.
About a month later the Board voted to require a doctor be actually present, effectively banning telemed abortions. The ruling was scheduled to go in effect about 3 November 2013.  Naturally PPH wasn't happy & immediately filed a lawsuit to ban the rule from taking effect in November. A few days before the ruling was to go into effect, the judge allowed PPH to continue doing the procedure until his ruling was made.
Today that ruling was made by Judge Farrell. In it he said that the Iowa Board of Medicine had the authority to make the rule. "There is no question that the board has the power to establish standards of practice for the medical profession. Those standards include the authority to adopt and enforce standards regarding the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing practice." 
He also said they followed all the legal requirements before making the rule. This ruling means that a doctor MUST physically examine the woman. The judge  also said that despite the added cost and time required for some women, it did not create an undue burden on them.
The ruling is scheduled to go into effect in 30 days.
Another claim made by PPH in the lawsuit was that Monsignor Frank Bonanno played an "outsized role" in the ruling. The judge disagreed. He said  "Monsignor Bognanno may oppose all abortion, but the record demonstrates that he focused his attention on medical abortion and the applicable standard of care." 
The judge also replied to the complaint that Mnsr Bognanno inappropriately distributed antiabortion materials to other board members. "The materials he sent to other board members focused on medical abortion, and his public statements were limited to the standard of care for medical abortion."
When I asked her about the ruling, DCRTL's Marian Bourek had the following to say: "I'm thrilled with the judge's ruling. He obviously took into account the safety of women."
Naturally PPH has said they will appeal the ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court.
Throughout this whole time the big claim made by PPH about banning telemed abortions was that it was an attempt to limit rural women's access to abortion. Or as they put it, needed medical care. They said at the hearing & everywhere else that these women were unable to get to larger cities to have access to abortion.
As usual. with PPH the reality is quite a bit different. They talk about their concerns for women in rural areas, but their actions say something else.
According to PPH, these women were unable to get to the larger cities & needed the more convenient access that a PP site in rural communities would provide. This year PPH has closed the last few of their rural sites, including the only 2 that offered telemed abortions. The past few years before that they closed the other 6 rural sites they were running.
1 of those was in Monticello. When they openned it about 8 years ago they used the same claim about women needing currently unavailable access to medical care. A couple of years later they closed it down saying that women were going to the Dubuque & Cedar Rapids sites instead. So much for the claim of the huge need.
While we are on the claim of a huge need, 7 years ago this week, Planned Parenthood of Eastern Iowa (now a part of PPH) opened its Dubuque site on Central. At the time they were open 40+ hours a week. They moved about 2 years ago to their own building. At that time they claimed they were not planning on adding telemed abortions to their services They did so up to just before the addition of telemed abortions. Now the Dubuque site is only open 13-1/2 hours a week. What happened to the huge need in Dubuque & all those women from the Monticello area that were coming here? Sadly, about the only time they do have people is the day they offer abortions.
According to the Des Moines Register story, in 2011 PPH had 16 sites that offered telemed abortions, earlier this year they said that only 7 sites offer them.  PPH described the closings of various sites & the reduction of the number of sites offering telemed abortions as well as the closings as shifts being made for efficency reasons.
The 16 & 7 counts don't tell the whole story. In 2011 the Dubuque site didn't offer telemed abortions, now it does. Also, since PPH"s Cedar Rapids site just stopped offering them. That would make the number 17 at one time & now 6, for a reduction of 11 sites. But that 6, or even 7, isn't correct according to PP's website.  The listing of Iowa sites shows that 9 sites currently offer telemed abortions. Or as they describe it "abortion pill (medication abortion)." (Note: this number is subject to change.) So why don't the 2 numbers match up? Why the downplay on the actual number of sites?
PPH started offering telemed abortions in 2008. In 2007 there were 6649 abortions, all surgical. In 2012 there were 4648 surgical & medical abortions, a drop of 30%. PPH claims that this is due to  an increased use of contraception, including longer acting ones.
The reality is different. There are more crisis pregnancy centers in Iowa that provide real alternatives. I can't speak for every PP site, but I do know the peaceful prayerful picketers at the Dubuque site also try & talk to the women as they go by. That includes making them aware of the alternatives in Dubuque like The Clarity Clinic & Birthright of Dubuque. The Clarity Clinic has seen an increase in the number of unborn babies saved over the past year. & they have now opened a 2nd location in Platteville WI near UW-Platteville.
Another fact that PPH ignores when it talks about efficency reasons is the power that prayer has played in shutting down most of the sites & the reduction of hours at the Dubuque site. As I already mentioned, every hour that PPH is open in Dubuque people are out there praying. The same is true elsewhere in Iowa. There have been 2 40 Days for Life campaigns across the state that have seen several of the sites where they took place close.
The battle isn't over yet. As I pointed out, PPH said they will appeal. They will. We must keep praying that the Iowas Supreme Court does the right thing & uphold Judge Farrell's ruling.
But for now, there is a pause among Pro-lifers to celebrate & thank God for the victory won today.

Sources: Judge rules against use of telemed abortion system
Judge Upholds Iowa Pro-Life Law Banning Dangerous Webcam Abortions
Judge upholds Iowa law; telemed abortion to end in 30 days
Judge: Priest's role in telemed-abortion vote was OK

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland - The Facts Belie Their Claims

1 thing that is absolutely certain about Planned Parenthood of the Heartland (PPH) is that they lie &/or obfuscate things to make them look like they are providing much needed services rather that being the abortion giant they are.

1 of those lies has been the need for their "clinics" in smaller communities to provide needed health care in rural areas. They said that the attacks on "telemed abortions" was an attack on the health care of those women's because banning them would cause them to have to close the smaller centers. Yet over the last few years, with "telemed abortions" still available, they have closed about 11 sites, mostly rural. Despite their claim there is a shifting need of services, the reality is that the sites are losing money & eating into profits.. They just announced the closing of 2 more rural sites.

The Des Moines Register brought up the Iowa Board of Medicine decision about "telemed abortions. It said "Planned Parenthood supporters say the decision was an attempt to limit rural women's access to a safe and legal method of abortion." 

It seems to me that PPH is the one limiting the access not the state or those of us who are Pro-life.

Also, the same PPH that said women need & want those services said about the latest closings " "The decision to close the health centers was based on an effort to eliminate inefficiency in resources - shifting the staff and equipment required for certain services from health centers where request for those services was low to areas where our patients are more densely located and availing themselves of our services," So much for the need they claim is there. If there truly was a need they would be expanding in rural areas not closing them.

This raises an interesting question: "What happened to the money they raised in a capital fund drive they were having?" Part of the money was supposed to expand into new rural areas where there was the so-called need for their services. As Jill June said on the Breaking New Ground website "we will break new ground with state-of-the-art health centers across our affiliate, including rural communities where there is a desperate need for our services."  
Speaking of so-called need, in Dubuque when they opened they operated a 40 hour schedule. That shrunk over the next couple of years. Now, at their new site, allegedly state-of-the-art, the still are not open full time. It only operates about 15 hours a week. & 2 of the 3 days it is open are the days they do "telemed abortions".
The reality is, the need they claim exists is only a cover to gain sympathy for their continued offering of telemed abortions in those areas where they can make huge profits off of it.
The last time anything was said about the campaign was in the 2012 Annual Report when they claimed to have raised $9.05 million of the $11.5 million goal. Yet the latest (2013) report says nothing about the drive or how the money has been used. It is as if it no longer exists. Additionally, the campaign website shows no update from the 2012 amount.

Speaking of the 2013 report, it gives a very minimal look at what their income/expenses where. Not that any past year has been that detailed. To maybe be a bit clearer minimal means only 1 pie chart for expenses, a minimal listing of income sources with no major details & no pie chart for revenue like they have in the past.
1 of those details is where they brag about providing $8,235,442 in uncompensated charity care . But when you look at the income they list for patient services v the expenses for health services the numbers do not add up.
On page 5 of the 2013 report the refer to the uncompensated amount as coming from health care services. On page 10 they list $22,693,241 for Health Services under expenses. Under income they list $17,219,377 for patient services. Since they have no details, I assume that amount would include cash, insurance, & medicaid. Now let's do the math. When you subtract the income from expenses you come up with $5,473,864 that was uncompensated. That is $2,761,578 less than the $8.25 million they claim. or 33.5% of the total amount they claim.
The only other place you might possibly put uncompensated services in expenses is Advocacy & Education. Just 1 problem there. It comes to $1,980,873. Even if you count 100% of that number as uncompensated care (very doubtful) you still end up about $.7 million short. Like I said the numbers don't add up.
Since we are on the subject of numbers, lets look at a few of the stats they give about the services they provide.
1 of those is the claim that abortions are only 2% of the services they provide. Is that true? Well, again that depends on how you play with the numbers.
They list contraceptive services at 146,775. Since they count each monthly prescription of the pill, 71% of the contraceptive services, that number is already inflated.
Add the fact that the same person who has an abortion also has had some of the other services, like birth control 1st, abortion may technically be 2%, but if you look at it as the percentage of people served you get another number
They claim to have served 72,948 people, male & female. They also say they provided 6367 abortions. That means that 8.7% of those they served had abortions. But even that may be inflated. That depends on whether they list each person only once, or the same person separately for each visit. Given their track record, I suspect the latter. So the number of those having abortions may be an even higher percentage, maybe even up to 50% based on what the average cost of an abortion is.
Since PPH doesn't list how much it made from abortions we have no idea what the actual income from them was or how much more than 2 of 8.5% it actually is. But I suspect it is much higher, maybe even up to 40% of their income.
Now let's look at the number of prescriptions for the pill, 104,210, omitting the other long range contraceptives & the morning after pill. That averages out to 8684 prescriptions a month. Now let's add that number to the other forms of contraception that aren't distributed monthly & you have approximately 51249 women served. I feel safe saying women as condoms are not listed at all.
Let's make 1 other assumption, everyone of the women who had an abortion also came to PPH for birth control we see that 12.4% of those who got cheap, low profit, birth control, mostly the low estrogen pill, came back for a more expensive, highly profitable abortion when it failed.
There is 1 last statistic I would like to look at, the tenure of the medical staff. The average tenure is 6.7 years. Given how long most of the sites have been open, at least 5 years, that makes for a pretty high turnover IMHO. & a lot less experience than PPH tries to make it sound like.

I could go on & on, but you get the idea. PPH isn't exactly as honest & forthcoming as they pretend to be.

Before I go, I would like to mention 1 more thing. On 21 June 2013 Jill June announced she would be leaving as president of PPH on 30 June 2014. The reason given for the early announcement was to give PPH plenty of time to find a "strong & dedicated successor." As of this date (8 June 2014) no announcement has been forthcoming as to who that person is. Given that June is making over $274,000 annually, it can't be poor pay that is the problem. So maybe they have found someone & don't want to give those of us on the Pro-life side any advance notice that will enable us to prepare for how that person will operate.
I will make 1 prediction, you can be sure that person will be just as adept at lying & deception as Jill June is.

Using Good to Justify Evil

Over the last few years the connections between the abortion industry, especially Planned Parenthood & the Girl Scouts have been coming out. The GSUSA has tried to distance themselves by saying "No, Girl Scouts of the USA does not have a relationship or partnership with Planned Parenthood." That is technically true. But for many local councils & through many other groups they associate with, there is that connection to Planned Parenthood. Recently 1 of their spokeswomen commended pro-abortion politician Wendy Davis & Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sibelius as women to emulate. 

There are many local Girl Scout councils that do not have any association with the abortion industry. Among those who do not is the local council here in Dubuque. But because part of their dues goes to the GSUSA as well as a licencing fee for each box of cookies does, there is still that indirect support.

That is why the recent CookieCott was organized, to make people aware of the connection as well as ensure Pro-lifers are not supporting Planned Parenthood etc through it. This is a simplifiedexplanaition. You can get the details here.

Part of the CookieCott was a tweetfest for those of us who are on Twitter to get the word out.   It was held on 6 February 2014, just before the weekend that the Girl Scouts had their cookie sales in front of grocery & other stores, etc.
I participated in it. My 1st tweet was "I'll keep saying no to Girl Scout cookies until they publicly repudiate their connection to Planned Parenthood". Well, it didn't take to long for a person^ to try & claim they had. I countered with facts, links etc, but this person either ignored (mostly) the evidence I presented, refused to answer my questions about that evidence, or out & out denied the truth.
Additionally, the person tried to use guilt on me. "Your issue is w/ GSNY*, not the girls who. . . (continued in next tweet due to space limitations) who use their cookie proceeds to help the homeless, veterans, schools, nursing homes and many othercharities. You hurt them too."
Obviously I wasn't going to fall for that ploy. So I responded with the following tweets:
"Pleae don't play this false sympathy card. The ends never justify the means if they are evil."
"There are many other groups that I support that help the homeless, hungry etc without ties to Planned Parenthood. So GS not needed."
I knew that this person wouldn't like what I said. The response was as follows:
"Shame on you for saying the needy should be helped by others because you don't like something. I'm finished with you."
Talk about an attempt to flame & demonize. I obviously hit a nerve with a fact that person didn't like because it totally undermined the justification used to continue buying GS cookies. Apparently the defending of the unborn is simply a dislike on my part, not the moral evil it really is.
Actually this person knows I am right & doesn't like the truth about how evil abortion is as well as the GSUSA connection to it. So saying it was something I don't like was an attempt to deny that truth, as well as try & paint me as the bad guy instead.
I knew that I wouldn't get a reply, but I did have to respond.
"There are plenty of other groups to support that do those same things, but doen't abet abortion like the GSUSA does."
"So cut out the self righteousness. I am not ashamed of the truth, but you seem to be willing to help murder unborn babies."
"Why are you afraid to face the facts/truth. The GSUSA is affiliated with groups that push abortion."
"That good that the GSUSA may do never absolves the evil they are associated with, you know that. I pray God opens your eyes to the truth"
These last few were sent yesterday. Of course I haven't gotten a reply. Nor do I expect to. This person knows I will not back down from speaking the truth. Please join in my prayers for an openness & acceptance of the truth by this person.
There are many good organizations out there that do not work with the abortion industry that deserve our support. The Girls Scouts is, sadly, not one of them. Fortunately, there is a good alternative, The American Heritage Girls. In fact they have even created a "Respect Life" patch for the girls to earn. So, until the GSUSA returns to its original values, the money I would spend on Girl Scout cookies will go to buying the candy bars sold by the American Heritage Girls instead.

^ The tweets are public, so I could use the person's name &/or gender. But instead I will keep it generic since it could be a man or woman saying the same thing to you someday. Hopefully this will help you see the real agenda, to justify the continued support of abortion by wrapping it in a cloak of good. As St. Paul pointed out in 2 Corinthians 11:14, Satan & hs demons can disguise themselves as an angel of light. This is exactly what is going on with the abortion industry through the GSUSA They are appearing as something good rather than the evil they are.

* The group involved in 1 of the many examples I used, not the only one. 

A Fruit of Praying in Front of Abortion Clinics

Abby Johnson, former Planned Parenthood abortion clinic director & Catholic convert was the guest on tonight's episode of The Journey Home on EWTN. She shared her powerful story. She also talked about how to reach out to those involved in the abortion industry as well as those men & women who have aborted their child. But there was 1 thing that especially stood out because I had never heard this statistic before.

Abby shared something she was told at 1 of the last conferences she attended as a Planned Parenthood employee. At that conference she was told that when there are people praying in front of an abortion clinic 75% of those who have an appointment to have an abortion don't show up.

Yup, 75% do NOT show up for the appointment. While some may go elsewhere, it is fairly certain that a large number never have the abortion. So, if you ever wonder what fruit your prayer is bearing, this is just one of them.

As I was thinking about it, a question popped into my mind. Planned Parenthood & other abortion providers push for bubble laws that require Pro-lifers to stay so far away from the clinic, sometimes up to 35 feet away. They say it is to protect their clients from being hassled & threatened by the Pro-lifers. Those of us on the Pro-life side have always assumed that this was to limit our effectiveness in stopping a woman from making the terrible mistake of aborting her child. But maybe there is more.

Could it be that they figure the further away we are, the less likelihood there is of a woman being a no-show?

Irregardless, we see once again the importance of prayer as the start, end & undergirding of our efforts to end the abortion holocaust. It also reminds us that even if we don't see the results now, our prayers are bearing fruit, in more ways than we realize.

Not all of us can stand in front of a clinic to pray. But all of us can & should pray daily for an end to abortion. We should also pray for the workers at abortion clinics, those who are contemplating an abortion & those who have had one.

In conclusion I would like to share a prayer I have prayed daily for many years. It is a prayer many of us in the Pro-life movement pray. This prayer was written by Venerable Fulton J. Sheen. I have no idea how many children have been saved through my praying it. But I know that it has been successful. 

Prayer to Spritually Adopt an Unborn Child

“Jesus, Mary and Joseph, I love you very much. I beg you to spare the life of the unborn baby that I have spiritually adopted who is in danger of abortion.”

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland - Is It Doing As Well As the Whole Organization

A few days ago, I did a quick look at how profitable abortion has been on the national level for Planned Parenthood. Of course that is the national combination of all the affiliates as well as what the national group gets itself.
Being that we have an abortion mill in DBQ run by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland (PPH), I decided to check things out, esp after I heard something about how the DBQ site was doing. So I decided to see if I could find anything specific. Unfortunately I was unable to get specifics so I won't go into details. But when I checked out how PPH was doing because I saw their latest annual report was out, I decided there may be some truth to what I heard. You'll figure out what I mean when I look at what I found out about PPH.
A couple of quick bits of background info. Over the past few years what is now PPH was several affiliates from Iowa, plus ones in Nebraska, Arkansas & Oklahoma. The older reports cover only the smaller versions of PPH. So making comparisons is difficult, for most things.
Also the report goes from July to June. So 2012 covers July 2011 to June 2012. 2011 would cover the 2010-11 period & 2010 would cover that period in 2009-10. As they expanded they would include the data for that year from the groups they merged with. But there is no way to find the info of the affiliates before the merger.  Like I said, it makes it difficult to make accurate comparisons.
The 1st thing I checked out was how many abortions had been done in 2011-12. It was 5832, that was up from 2010-11 when they did 5504. 09-10 showed 5685. Why did the number go down after some of the mergers & then back up this past year? I am not completely sure. I suspect at least part of this year's increase is due to more sites offering telemed abortions. That is as far as I dare hazard a guess.
They claim that those who had an abortion made up only 2% of those served. As I have pointed out before, that is no where near an accurate reflection as they count the same individual for  each part, exam, ultrasound or whatever, it makes the numbers look lower.
Interestingly enough, for 2012 they showed 4 adoption referrals as an actual part of their chart of services, but only as an aside. The 2011 report doesn't mention any & the 2010 report mentions in the text that they did 7 referrals. Not exactly the numbers you would expect if PPH was honestly presenting all the alternatives to women. However, I am sure they see each of those referrals as a failure on their part since they lost an opportunity to make money on abortions.
Now lets get to the important info, income & expenses. Income includes that from all sources; donations, government funding, investments etc. Yes, they do have investment income as well as the mysterious misc.
A couple of comments on that before I go on. Most non-profits have some money invested. The idea is to have a sure source of income from dividends to fall back on. The only problem is, the PPH reports don't tell us the value of those investments.  So we don't have a totally accurate idea of what they are actually worth. That info is buried in the tax forms the national level puts out. Those forms lump the various affiliates together as 1.
As for misc., I suspect some of that could be interest from savings &/or checking accounts if they are interest bearing.
So what did I discover.
For 2011-12 PPH took in $27.48 million & spent $31.8 million. Yes, apparently they lost money. $4.32 million to be exact. That would explain the closing of some of the Iowa sites this past year. They had to cut their losses. Remember, they may be defined as non-profit, but they put many for-profit companies to shame with the income over expense bottom line.
1 of their problems is that there contributions are way down from last year, despite a larger base.  The 2012 report shows that they got $6.97 million. 2011's report showed  that they got $11.3 million. The 2010 report show $6.9 million. If, as Jill June claims, they had some "tremendous fundraising events", why are contributions down? Tremendous should mean successful in generating more revenue, not just a fun, if debauched, time had by all.
The report brags about them getting $23,000 from 600+ donors after the announcement that Koman was defunding them, something Koman reversed after PP used Mafia-like strong arm tactics on them. If you average the donations out using only the 600 donors, the amount comes to a mere $38.333 per donor. & since it was more than 600 donors, that means the actual per donor amount was less.
She goes on to brag that with the nearly (emphasis mine) $60,000 in grants & donations they will be able to expand their cancer screenings. Given how little that amount is, it is doubtful that they will do more than make it look like they are expanding. If they were as serious as they claim, why aren't they trying expand to offering mammograms like they have made it sound like they provide, but don't. & the number of breast exams they have provided is down from last year, despite the larger number of sites due to the expansions. The did 19104 in 2012, 19826 in 2011. The 2011 number is up from the 2010 number of 19034. But none of these numbers shows that women are flocking to them like they claim.
Another thing PPH likes to brag about, especially when they talk about expanding to rural parts of Iowa is the huge need for primary care for lower income people that they wouldn't otherwise get. If that was so true, then why did they close the Storm Lake & Knoxville locations? Or the Newton site? Or the Monticello on a couple years ago? All of these are in what are rural areas they claim has that huge need. I remember how they claimed there was a huge need for the part time site in Monticello so that it would be convenient for women who needed their services. Yet when they closed it less than 2 years after opening the claim was women were going to the CR & DBQ sites. The reality is, they weren't able to make money, their real concern.
Something else interesting in the 2012 report is the fact that for the 1st time they talk about the "uncompensated charity care". This is the money they claim they absorbed because clients didn't have adequate insurance or financial means. Why are they all of a sudden concerned about showing this? To try & explain away their loss this year?
The other question I have is how much of this was real costs absorbed & how much of this was the disallowed amounts from medicaid & other insurance plans? Much of that is not actual loss since this is figured in already when they set their rates.
Interestingly, the amount they said they provided in uncompensated care is over $8.5 million nearly double the amount of the $4.32 million loss they apparently suffered.
Since we are on the subject of the health care they provide, let's look at the actual numbers. Specifically the primary care they say women (as well as me & children) aren't getting elsewhere. OK, they do breast exams, pap tests & colposcopies/biopsies. But primary care is much much more than that. What they provide for that would be found under what they label as family practice & prenatal pediatric care. In 2012 they provided 609 prenatal/peds services & 1982 family practice services. (Note: I am saying services since that number could be multiple times for a single person, something they like to do to inflate numbers to hide the size of the number of abortions they do.) That comes to a total of 2951 services. For 2011 & 2010 they only say the number of family practice services provided. I suspect that those numbers include the separate prenatal/peds numbers in the 2012 numbers. The number of services in 2011 was 2315 & in 2010 they were 2556. None of those are  huge, less than 1% of total services. If the need was really there, these numbers would be huger.
The 1 area they have had a healthy growth in is in the dollar amount of government grants. In 2010 they were $1.4 million, in 2011 they went up to $1.7 million. Then we come to 2012 when they reached almost $2.7 million. The amount of grants almost doubled in 2 years. & this is just grants. They also get a huge amount from medicaid. That number is buried in the amount they get for patient services They say that 50% of the services went to those under the poverty level, 9% for those between 100-150%. Add to that another 5% for those at 150-200% of the poverty level. So you can be sure that a huge part of that money came from us taxpayers.
You also see another reason why they are afraid of losing government money. It is the only thing that keeps them profitable.
If the loss for 2012 is real, not based on inflated costs, then it would explain not only the closings, but the huge expansion of telemed abortions. They need the money. Then again this could just be a ploy to make them look like they are not doing as well as they actually are so they could play on people's sympathy to get donations up, thus the mention of the charity care given.
There is also a 3rd possibility, the loss is a 1 year thing as a result of the expense from expanding telemed abortion. Even this loss could be a result of some creative bookkeeping. The last few years they have been running a huge capital campaign that has raised over $9 million. Since the assets they have are NOT mentioned in the report they money could be invested, explaining the huge jump in investment as well as that of misc. income. They could be waiting until the 2013 fiscal year to transfer the money to cover those costs.
Whatever the real reason for the "loss" I highly doubt that it is serious, or a sign of things to come, (OH, IF ONLY!!!!!) Instead, I suspect it is being used to justify more government money. more contributions & more PR mileage to hide the truth about their using these funds to expand their abortion business.
Some of the local sites still open are probably on the edge. I suspect that DBQ is 1 of them. The number of people going there is up after their move & adding of telemed abortions.  But probably not enough to break even. I also suspect that as long as possible, they will do all they can to keep it open. In part because of the strong Pro-life presence compared to much of the state, partly because DBQ is supposed to be strongly Catholic, so having a successful abortion mill here would be a way of mocking God as well as showing how out of touch the Catholic Church is with the average Catholic. Of course, their definition of average Catholic is one who dissents with the magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church, not a person who does live the faith.
I also suspect that at least 1 future merger is in the works. None of the PP of Central Oklahoma (PPCO) sites offer actual abortions. The national federation has ordered all of their affiliates to start offering abortions by this year. Oklahoma requires a doctor to be physically present when prescribing RU-486, effectively banning telemed abortions. It also requires an abortionist to offer the woman the opportunity to hear the fetal heartbeat before the abortion. So either PPCO will have to start offering surgical abortions or merge with an affiliate that already offers abortions at 1 of their sites. PPH is the logical choice. & their so-called loss will definitely not be an impediment. It will be a justification.

What Is Sad Is That She Really Believes In What She Is Saying

Disgusting as well.

Meet Mary Elizabeth Williams:

She is a staff writer for Salon. Her recent column on why she is pro-abortion would be considered a sick joke if she wasn't so serious.

The title alone gives you a clue about where she is heading, So what if abortion ends a life? Yes she is admitting that abortion takes the life of a human being. But she is so callous that she thinks it is OK.

Why? Because she says that "All life is not created equal." You read that right. She is basically repudiating the Declaration of Independence, endorsing Hitler's attempts to kill the Jewish people because they were inferior & not fully human, & fully embracing Margaret Sanger's racist, eugenic agenda.

The last should be no surprize for those reading the article. It was written to applaud Planned Parenthood's recent announcement that they were backing away from the term choice & seeking to be more nuanced about why someone should be able to have an abortion.

She is somewhat aware of how this makes the pro-abortion side look. She says they could "wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers". No, it makes them look like something much worse. Something she fails to admit.

She fails to admit what this actually makes them look like because of what it justifies if you follow it to her logical conclusion. So where does her logic lead? Let's take a look.

I already made some reference to others who held this view & how they lived it out. Hitler's agenda led to the death of 6 million Jews. Sanger & Planned Parenthood have been doing their best to ensure the elimination of blacks & hispanics whom she saw as racially inferior, not equal to her idea of what a human should be.

So, if someone sees blacks as less than equal to whites, why shouldn't he own blacks as slave? If you follow her logic, that is where you end up. 

Now I am sure she will deny that it would lead to this. But remember, many slave owners did view blacks as not being humans, just property. & in the Dredd Scott decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that view. Their lives weren't equal to that of whites. We have already been there in this country, so why not again.

So who decides which lives have more value. In this case, she has decided that the mother's life is. But who made her the final authority?  

She would say that in this case, she isn't the final authority, but the woman is. But if the woman can decide that about her child, then why can't that same right to decide extend to everyone about everyone else?

If every life is not equal, who is to be the final arbitrator of who deserves to live & who doesn't?

What is to prevent another Hitler from coming along & deciding that Jews, blacks or even women are lives that are not equal to the group he wants in charge?

Much as she may not like it, her view justifies racism, it justifies racial cleansing, it justifies slavery, treating women as 2nd class as well as the evil of abortion. Much as I hate to say it, she is saying that it was OK for Adam Lanza to kill his mother as well as the students & teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School. After all, he could very well have seen himself as better than those he killed. Her logic could even be used to justify rape. That it could makes me sick. 

Williams has drawn back the curtain & shown us the demonic evil behind what she advocates. The sad part is that among those embracing the "culture of death" this won't be shocking at all. Even sadder is the fact that, because or devaluation of life has been so gradual, a huge part of America as a whole won't be shocked either. If an abortion supporter had said this 35 years ago, you can be sure that abortion would have quickly been banned. But because of that devaluation, she is simply one of those showing us the way we are heading. She is much like Peter Singer in that respect. Remember that he said that a human being has to earn the right to live, it doesn't come automaticly, before or after birth .

In his homily at Mass yesterday, Fr. Parker (St. Mary's Catholic Church, E DBQ), said that we need more people to pray for this country lest it be destroyed. He added that what has probably kept it from already happen is that some people have been praying as they should.

Please, please, keep praying if you do, for this country to repent & return to God. If not, then please start. & challenge others to do the same. Apparently it still isn't too late. But for how long?

Source: Salon Article Says Unborn Baby is “A Life Worth Sacrificing”

What 40 Years of Roe v Wade & Doe v Bolton Has Affected My Life

Today marks 1 of the saddest days in the history of the USA, a day of even greater infamy than the attack on Pearl Harbor that drug the US into WW II. Roe v Wade & Doe v Bolton changed this country. & not for the better.
As a part of their trying to make abortion seem acceptable, NARAL has asked those participating in their annual Blog for Choice to explain why they are pro-choice. (More about it & how to respond here.) So since they are calling on abortion supporters to tell their story, I felt it only right tht I share my journey as a Pro-lifer. I use the word journey intentionally because that is exactly what it has been as you will see.

I have to admit that the ruling was NOT on my radar that day 40 years ago. I was a 17 year old High School Senior. The upcoming retreat weekend I was to make at Gilbertville Don Bosco HS was at the top of the list, along with all the usual things that concern a HS Senior.

It wasn't until my college days that I even began to think about it. I remember one of the 1st times a few of us discussed it. I was a sophomore @ Loras. The Catholic Church's teaching didn't come up. Also, I will admit that I really didn't understand what abortion did to the unborn child.

But over the next few months I began to look at what the Church taught &, even though I didn't fully understand why, I knew what the Church was saying was right.

So, fast forward to my junior year & the 1976 Dubuque County Democratic Convention. I went as a Carter delegate because he was the only candidate claiming to be Pro-life. I learned later how sincere that claim really was. At the time I was going on what I knew, so I have no regrets for what I did.

The proposed platform didn't contain anything about protecting the right to life of the unborn. So, Joe Hart, a fellow Loras student, & I went arround to get the signatures needed to bring it up.

This is where I ran into my 1st experience of "I'm personally opposed but I can't impose my morality on others," cop out. The person was a local Franciscan, Sr. Dorothy Hennessey OSF. Yes, the same Franciscans that have Pat Farrell, the recent head of the dissident LCWR, as a member. The problems do go that far back.
Needless to say I was shocked. At the time, I didn't know much about her, but as the years wore on she became a prime example of the hypocrisy of those liberal Catholycs who make the same claim.  I say that because she would show up in DBQ & elsewhere waving a sign saying "War is immoral" & calling for an end to war. So, it was OK for her to impose her morality when it came to war by saying it is never moral & never should be allowed. But it was wrong for her to speak out about the immorality of abortion, something that has killed more Americans  in one year than every war the US has participated in since 1775. (Details  of war death numbers here) Sadly, I never got the chance to talk to her about her double standard before she died.
By 1980 I knew I couldn't support Carter, so I voted for Reagan. I have never voted for a Democratic president since. As time went on I eventually left the Democratic party because, as a Pro-lifer, I wasn't very welcome. Yes, it was hard since I grew up active in Democratic politics. But I knew I had to move as I could have some effect there. This is also why I am not wedded to the Republican party either. What I believe in guides my politics, not politics guiding my beliefs.
Back in the 80s the nearest abortion clinics in Iowa were those in Iowa City. Because of my work schedule I couldn't go with those going to protest at Emma Goldman in CR a lot. But I occasionally did.
During the 80s I continued to grow in my faith & the conviction that abortion was wrong. During this time, science took a leap forward so we could see what actually happened from fertilization/conception to the birth of the child. Add to that Dr. Bernard Nathanson's ultrasound video showing what actually happened during an abortion showed me why what the Church taught was right. (As an aside, Dr. Nathanson started NARAL but later converted to Pro-life & made the video as a result of that conversion.)
Speaking of ultrasounds, as the importance of them as a tool in saving lives has grown, I have spoken out & supported as I could the efforts to expand the use of them at crisis pregnancy centers. Ditto supporting the places that offer aternatives in general.
In my naivete during those early years, I honestly thought that we would be rid of abortion by the mid to late 80s. All we needed to do was get Pro-lifers elected & that would do it. We see how wrong I was, unfortunately.  I still didn't really understand the type of battle this was. I didn't know there was much more to it that politics.
But about 1989-90, I began to come to an understanding of what was really being the pro-abortion movement.
A bunch of us from DBQ went down to join in a march from Coralville to the Iowa University clinic where they did abortions. As we gathered so did a group of radical abortion supporters. It became clear that they were going to try to stop us, with force if necessary. So they asked the men to come to the front to protect women & children there from harm. What I saw in the eyes of those on the other side was pure evil & rabid hatred. Demonic in nature to be exact.
I didn't grasp the full implications for many years. But the seeds of understanding what was behind what they were doing were planted. In 1993 Pope John Paul 1st started speaking about a "Culture of Life". In his 1995 encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, he developed the idea of what a "Culture of Life" should be like. He also talked about the "culture of death", what it stood for & its relation to sin.
As that teaching sunk in & as I grew in my understanding of the spiritual underpinnings, I eventually grasped what was behind the current "culture of death", it was demonic.
I had a different job in the 90s. But I worked nights & weekends, making it even more difficult to do much other than on the political scene. I did my best to speak up where & when I could.
After the turn of the century some things changed that lead to me being more active in a variety of ways.
1 of those was the start of this blog in December of 2004. It didn't start out to focus as much as it has on abortion. & for a while, I was inactive. But as time went on, I began to focus primarily on the Pro-life issues. The growth of on-line Pro-life news resources as well as the growing use of the Pro-life movement of the internet helped me to turn this into a strong voice defending the life of the unborn.
About the same time, I took a speaker's class at DBQ Co. Right to Life. We had to chose a topic to speak on. At 1st I was looking at the psychological damage done to women by abortion. But something got me thinking, what about the men, how does it effect them. At the time research into this was just beginning. But I was able to find enough to show me this was worth pursuing. Since then there has been much more research giving more proof that it does harm the men, emotionally & psychologically.   We have seen the growth of ministries aimed at helping both men & women get the spiritual & psychological healing they need. Many times I have had been able to call on my knowledge to speak out about this topic. This also became something personal after I met Jason Jones in 2007.all I could, He was promoting the movie Bella that he helped co-produce. He also shared his story about how he lost a child to abortion. I got to know him better when he was working on Sam Brownback's presidential campaign.
Jason has spoken as a part of Silent No More's presentations during the annual March for Life. If you get the chance, listen to his story. It is a powerful reminder that abortion leaves many victims in its wake.
I was also able to get more involved with some of the things sponsored by DBQ Co Right to Life, like attending their Life Dinner. Then came that dark day in 2008 when Planned Parenthood opened a clinic in downtown DBQ. At the time they were open 40 hours & I began to regularly pray & protest in front of it on my day off. As time went on they reduced their hours & changed the days they were open. I have filled in when I can. & last year I helped to run the 40 Days for Life prayer campaign in DBQ.
Over the years I have been sworn at, had my reputation attacked & even suffered vandalism for speaking up. I have forgiven those who have tried to harm me & pray God will do so as well. I realize it is a part of the price God has asked me to pay. So I willingly, if not always happily, pay it.
Well, that is it in a nutshell. Have I always done all I could? No, I haven't. But with God's help I will work to grow in my commitment & willingness to do what I can & must do to build the "Culture of Life", starting with my prayer life.
As I said earlier, I came to realize the demonic underpinnings of the "culture of death". As my understanding of that grew so did my realization that this battle won't be won without prayer & reliance on God to do it.
I also realize that I am but a small part in God's plan to build a "Culture of Life". Small, YES. But that doesn't matter. My responsibility is to do what God wants, great or small. I will never know this side of eternity the effects my efforts have had. All I need to know now is what God expects of me & to do it with the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't know what the cost will be. with the way things are in the USA it may someday mean my freedom, or even my life. That doesn't matter. Until abortion is no longer a part of our culture or I die, whichever comes 1st, I will continue to speak out for the unborn & defend all those who are harmed by abortion. May I bring God's healing, forgiveness & mercy wherever I go & in whatever I say.

Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day - 2013

Some thoughts as we remember Dr King this day.

Yup, that is right, he was a Republican, not a Democrat. People forget that as well as the fact that it was the Democratic Party that opposed what he stood for. 

Let's start with what he did in Alabama. From November 1874 to January 1987, the governor was a Democrat. The Democrats controlled the legislature that created the 1875 & 1901 state constitutions as well as the Jim Crow Laws that enshrined racial segregation. It is also safe to say that most of those in charge on the local level as well as the judges of the 50s & 60s were Democrats as well.

He was indicted, convicted  & jailed for his part in the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 55-56. When he was arrested in Birmingham in 63, George Wallace, a Democrat, was governor. He is remembered for the line in his 1st inaugural speech where he said "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

It was under Kennedy & Johnson that J. Edgar Hoover did all the digging into his life trying to prove & failing, that King was a communist so that Hoover could destroy his effectiveness as a civil rights leader.

Sadly, King was taken in by Planned Parenthood when he accepted their Margaret Sanger Award in 1966. Actually Coretta King accepted it for him. His niece, Alveda  King, as well as her mother, Naomi Barber King (MLK's sister-in-law) have made it clear he was Pro-life. The fact is, the award was a part if Planned Parenthood's ongoing implementation of Sanger's Negro Project, using black leaders to disguise her racist eugenics policy.

Rev. King did what he did based on his Christian faith. His example stands as a shining light to guide us in the Pro-life movement who are fighting to put an end to abortion. He would definitely be speaking out against abortion & would especially be decrying those black leaders who are helping the abortion industry kill off blacks & other minorities (See Maafa 21 for more.) 

What Planned Parenthood's New Logo Should Really Be

After the election last November, Planned Parenthood (PP) announced that it was changing from this logo that they have used since the 70s:

,

to this:

.

As you can see they made 2 changes. the 1 P overlaps the other rather than being inside it. Next they added the motto about "Care" below it. The idea was to make it seem like they provide health care for women, men & young people as well as care about them as people.

However, what has been revealed in the latest report (see links below for details) is that what they really care about is doing more abortions & making more money, both from insurance & esp us taxpayers, while doing so.

According to the report they did a record 333,964 abortions on during the 2011-2012 fiscal year. It is estimated that those abortions  generated between $150 to 174 million for the “nonprofit” organization. That means about 56% of their income was from abortions.

PP likes to say it provides women with information on all the alternatives & brags about how it will refer women for adoption. So what do the numbers actually show. In this case, that only 2,300 Planned Parenthood customers were referred to adoption agencies during the 2011-2012 fiscal year. Or 145.2 abortions for each adoption referral.
So how is PP doing financially. to hear them moan every time the threat of defunding comes up, you would think that they are barely breaking even. Not so. Yes, $542.4 million or 45.2% of their annual budget came from government funding. That helped PP have a  profit of over $87.4 million. Or as they like to label it to maintain the legal  fantasy, excess over expense. That much isn't exactly a small excess that you would normally expect. & when you look back to how much "excess" they have had since the 2000-2001 fiscal year, the total comes to $771 million. So much for their non-profit claim.
Despite the claim that abortion is only 3% of their services, it provided 56% of their income. Add to that they do not provide mammograms, the number of breast screenings has dropped 20% in the last 2 years, cancer screenings are down 29% over the last 2 years, contraceptive services are down 11% over the last 2 years & the total number of clients served has decreased. Finally, we have the fact that PP is expecting all of its affiliates to begin providing abortions in the next few months. Add to this the fact that even those affiliates who do provide abortions at some sites are expanding the number of sites they do them at (like here in DBQ) & closing down sites that don't. That means that the number of abortions done will definitely go up making it a larger part than ever of what they do.
So instead of the new logo they came out with above,  maybe this one might better reflect what Planned Parenthood is really about:

Logo source: Hospital Stops Delivering Babies as ObamaCare Descends

Stories for more details: Planned Parenthood Sees Record High Abortions, Taxpayer Funding
Planned Parenthood report shows 333,964 killed, 45% of funds come from government

Special Issue: STOPP analysis of Planned Parenthood’s 2011-2012 annual report

The Dust Still Hasn't Settled From Last Tuesday's Election, But the 2016 Campaign Is Already Being Tauted

I just came across 2 articles that didn't surprize me, but already have me saying BASTA!!!!! This is too early to seriously start looking at who will run.

1 of theses articles talked about the 1st primary state, New Hampshire (Clinton, Christie Lead First Polls Of 2016 N.H. Primaries) The other is closer to home as it looks at my state of Iowa, the 1st caucus state (Mike Huckabee Leads GOP for 2016 in Iowa, Hillary for Dems).

In both states Shrillary Clinton is the leader on the Democratic side. Of course, she currently has the greatest name recognition. & the talk is already beginning that she will step down as Secretary of State in January after the inauguration (Pro-Abortion Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Step Down) But will she run is another matter. In Iowa she had 58% support & in New Hampshire she had 60%. So for now it looks like she has the best chance to win. But let us not forget, the conventional wisdom had her winning over mostly unknown Obama back in 2007. & we saw what happenned in 2008.

As for the Republicans, 21% of those in New Hampshire support Gov. Chris Christie. In Iowa it is Gov. Mike Huckabee with 15%. Christie is tied for 2nd place with Paul Ryan & Florida Sen. Marco Rubio @ 12% each. However in New Hampshire Huckabee isn't even in the top 5.

So what does this mean????
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only reason I am mentioning it is to show what we can expect from the media who will be doing their best to manipulate what happens in 4 years.

The reality is, a lot can & will happen between now & then that will do more to determine the nominee than these polls.

We have no idea who will really run. & what may come out between now & then that might bring someone else to the forefront, in both parties.

Right now the Republican Party leadership has got to quit shooting itself in the foot by continuing to marginalize the Pro-life (aka social conservation) members of the party. Of course they are doing it through the pundits to give themselves cover.

The fact is, except for selecting Paul Ryan, Romney did very little to get the support of the Pro-lifers/social conservatives out there. In fact, his campaign did just the opposite. Starting with what I call the "Palin"ization of Ryan. Rather than letting him get out there, they pushed him to the background & silenced him, just like McCann did to Palin. Instead they should have turned Ryan lose.

While I hate to use this example, it best shows the point I am making. Despite how he is painted as a conservative, Richard Nixon was much more of a moderate. For all his faults & crimes Nixon did do one thing right in the 1968 campaign. He knew he needed a strong appeal to the conservatives. So he selected Spiro Agnew who, despite being somewhat moderate himself, knew how to reach the conservatives. Unfortunately, he too later turned out to be a crook. But he was a strong voice for the conservative wing. & Nixon turned him lose to speak out.

Not only did Romney not turn Ryan lose as he should, he totally avoided the social issues, the very thing the pundits had been saying all along. But now that that strategy lost, those same pundits are trying to cover their posteriors by trying to blame the social conservatives.

Well guess what? We know better. & we aren't going to be silent about it.

Lets start with what Romney actually did or didn't do.

What he didn't do is really campaign on the life issues.

What did he do? As Austin Ruse, president of C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), points out in an article for Crisis Magazine, Romney’s Abandonment of Social Issues Contributed to His Defeat. He says "What ads did he run? Perhaps they were thinking of the Romney ad meant to quell pro-choice concerns, the one telling folks they shouldn’t worry because he still favored abortion for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother? And perhaps these conservatives could show us the ads Romney ran supporting historical marriage, because I missed those and I live in what was one of the hottest of swing states, Virginia.

I might be able to understand these comments if Romney had actually run as a social conservative, but his race was first, last and always about the economy, smaller government, lower taxes, things to warm the cockles of almost any fiscal conservative. But where and when did he actually campaign as a social conservative?"

The answer is, he didn't. & those saying he did can't back it up. & they know it.

Ruse goes on to point out more evidence that Romney had followed their plan. & that is the real reason he failed.

When asked about the social issues Romney "would parrot some ill thought out talking points. He said while he was against abortion he favored the exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother. He was so unpracticed on this issue that he seemed not to know that the health exception in Doe v Bolton was what got us to abortion on demand in the first place."

Additionally "He also said he had no legislative plans on the life issues but that he would reinstate Mexico City Policy and defunding of UNFPA. Is this really what his adviser gave him to say? I dare say that most rank and file pro-lifers have never heard of either Mexico City Policy or UNFPA. Such easy promises are held out as the tiniest of sops to pro-life leaders but in no way give anyone pro-life credentials.

Romney did say he would defund Planned Parenthood but he never said why. He could have pointed out that there are several thousand Title X clinics not connected to Planned Parenthood that do everything Planned Parenthood does except abortions. He could have pointed out that Planned Parenthood raises a billion dollars a year and in time of fiscal crisis perhaps our money is spent better elsewhere. He could have said Planned Parenthood does not do mammograms no matter what they say. He could have said losing federal funding would hardly close Planned Parenthood down. But he didn’t say any of these things."

Not exactly the hardline social conservative these people would like to paint Romney as. In fact, for many of us, this was 2008 all over again, holding our noses to vote for what we hoped would be a better opportunity to get our voices heard than we have now.

In fact, for many of us, myself included, it was very hard to not vote for the Constitution Party candidate, Virgil Goode. Their party had an even stronger pro-life stand as well as even stronger stand on the other social issues than the Republican party. But many of us felt the best chance was to go with Romney.

& if Romney had been strongly pro-life, enough of those Pro-lifers who didn't show up very well might have, giving Romney the win.

I suspect things will be totally different in 2016 if the leadership of the Republican party doesn't stop trying to marginalize us. They think they can get away with it because we have stayed with the party for now.

But, maybe they better learn a little lesson from their own history. The Whig party was divided on the social issue of its day, slavery. By trying to avoid the issue through compromise with the pro-slavery contingency, the leadership drove the anti-slavery members to the Republican party, thus ensuring its death. The same could happen if the Republican leadership continues along a similar path of self-destruction. I know many people say otherwise, the 2 major parties are too ingrained. But aren't these mostly the same people who want to shut up the social issues people? Sounds to me like they aren't exactly unbiased on this issue.

Another reason I hear for saying we need to stick with the Republicans is that it would take too long for a new party to build strength. Again I point to the Whig/Republican story. The Republicans began in 1854 & Lincoln was elected just 6 years later. With the Constitution party already in existance, it could happen just as quickly.

Pro-life is an issue that will not go away any more than that of ending slavery did in the 1800s. The only real difference is that there is no free state/slave state equivalent.

The battle for 2016 has begun. In some ways it needs to. The Republicans have to take an honest look at why they lost. It wasn't the  embracing, it was the abandoning of the social issues, like abortion, that is a huge part of the reason they lost.  & if they continue to abandon us, it will be the reason they lose in 2016 as well.

Remember to Vote Pro-Life Tommorrow!!!!!*

* Unless you have already voted early, like I did. I had a good reason to, I will be a pollworker at the 17th precinct in DBQ. That means being there from 6 am until everything is wrapped up after the polls close at 9 pm. How long that will be depends on if there are, as I suspect there might, people still in line to vote. 

I have done this before, so I know what to expect, for the most part a busy day. Even with the fact that about 30% of the eligible voters in DBQ have already voted. I say about because as of Saturday, 28.9% of those eligible had voted either absentee or at an early voting site. Early voting continues until 5 pm today & absentee ballots have to be postmarked by today. so the number will probably be 30% or a little higher.

I have little tolerance for those who don't vote, regardless of how, yet complain. It is important we vote & vote with a properly formed conscience that takes an informed look at who the candidates are & what they stand for. But it is more than this, we must also keep holding their feet to the fire after the election as well, making sure they know we will vote them out next time arround if the fail.

& above all, we must PRAY!!!! no matter who is in office.

So why vote Pro-life for the few who are undecided.

Well you can't vote for Obama & most Democrats as they are anything but Pro-life.

The short answer is that we have a moral responsibility to not vote for them. But for those who want a more in depth answer I will give it to you.

To start with, I wrote a letter to the local paper about it last week. But with the huge number, as of today, sent in the don't print them all, it didn't get printed & I doubt it will. So here is what I wrote that explains why:

 

I was always taught that a Catholic had a moral duty to be an active citizen, including voting for those candidates who best reflected the teachings of the Catholic Church. In doing that, you followed the principles this country was founded on.

For faithful Catholics, the difference between the two main parties is clear.

Bishop Paprocki of Springfield said in a pastoral letter to his diocese, the Democratic platform "explicitly endorse intrinsic evils", abortion and same-sex marriage.

He then said "I have read the Republican Party Platform and there is nothing in it that supports or promotes an intrinsic evil or a serious sin."

He added "One might argue for different methods in the platform to address the needs of the poor, to feed the hungry and to solve the challenges of immigration, but these are prudential judgments about the most effective means of achieving morally desirable ends, not intrinsic evils."

Finally, "a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy."

Bishop Ricken of Green Bay wrote a similar letter.

So, you can live your faith, voting for those who reject intrinsic evils.

Or you can vote for Democratic candidates who support them and risk hearing Jesus say "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire," because of what you didn't do, protect the least, the unborn, from abortion.

I'm rejecting those intrinsic evils.

I'm voting Pro-life, pro-traditional marriage.

 

To this I would like to add a link to a homily that was given by Msgr. Daniel J. Deutsch, pastor of Holy Cross Catholic Church in Batavia, IL on Sunday, 28 October 2012.  It was played, with Msgr. Deutsch's permission at the Masses @ St. Mary's Catholic Church in E DBQ.

 

Mnsr. Deutsch

You can listen to it here.

 

Finally, I wish to share with you Top 10 Reasons For Pro-Lifers to Vote for Mitt Romney that was put  out by LifeNews on Sunday:

 

In the election between pro-abortion President Barack Obama and former Governor Mitt Romney, there is a wide chasm between the two when it comes to the concerns pro-life voters have about abortion.

Whereas Obama has crafted a lengthy pro-abortion record, with more than 240 anti-life actions and a zealous effort to keep virtually unlimited abortions in place for another 40 years, Mitt Romney has taken pro-life positions that should earn him the vote of every pro-life voter on election day.

Here are ten reasons why pro-life voters should vote for Mitt Romney for president and why LifeNews is endorsing Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

1. Roe v. Wade: Because a federal Human Life Amendment to the Constitution is an extraordinarily difficult long-term prospect, overturning Roe v. Wade is the only real method of achieving legal protection for unborn children any time soon. When it comes to Roe v. Wade, Obama has repeatedly voiced his support for the infamous abortion decision while Romney has repeatedly said he wants it overturned.

2. Supreme Court: To overturn Roe v. Wade, we need more Supreme Court justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, both of whom have publicly made clear their desire to overturn the decision. President Obama named pro-abortion radicals Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to the high court in his effort to keep abortions legal another 40 years. On the other hand, Romney assembled a team of pro-life, conservative legal heavyweights to advise him on legal matters — specifically on the right kind of judges he should consider should he become president. The co-chairman of the Romney Justice Advisory Committee is former Appeals Court justice Robert Bork, a prior Supreme Court nominee who is highly-regarded by pro-life and conservative voters for his legal acumen. The second member of the Romney judicial team is Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon, a pro-life heroine who is a former ambassador to the Vatican and well-respected by the Catholic community.

3. Obamacare: The Obamacare health care law President Obama signed contains absolutely no limits on abortion funding. Every pro-life group has confirmed that, once it is fully implemented, Obamacare will fund abortions and fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business. Romney has said he would push for repealing Obamacare and do so beginning on the first day in office by removing any funding or implementation he can via executive order that can be done other than its full repeal.

4. Obama’s HHS-Abortion Mandate: The pro-abortion mandate in Obamacare has led to more than 100 lawsuits from Catholic and evangelical groups, colleges, and businesses that would be subjected to millions in fines if they did not pay for abortion-causing drugs and birth control for their employees. Obama’s administration approved the mandate but Romney running mate Paul Ryan has said numerous times he would oppose it and get rid of it.

5. Vice President: Perhaps the most important personnel decision a president can make is naming a Vice President. President Obama chose pro-abortion Vice President Joe Biden, who had a lengthy pro-abortion record, has upset Catholics by saying he is faithful to Church teachings even though he supports abortion, and famously said he wouldn’t second-guess China’s one-child policy. In Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney has selected a potential Vice President with a 100% pro-life voting record and a sterling commitment to protecting unborn children. Ryan will be a key pro-life ally in the White House to ensure the Romney administration puts forth pro-life policies.

6. Planned Parenthood: President Obama has bent over backward to force taxpayers to fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business. He repeatedly refused to sign a bill in Congress to revoke its hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds and, on several occasions, he forced states to fund the abortion giant even after they approved legislation to de-fund it. Romney has repeatedly made it clear he will work to de-fund Planned Parenthood, saying, “I think I’ve said time and again that I’m a pro-life candidate and I’ll be a pro-life president. The actions I’ll take immediately is to remove funding for Planned Parenthood. It will not be part of my budget.”

7. Mexico City Policy: The Mexico City Policy is a less-well-known method of revoking taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood. During his first week in
office, Obama overturned the policy and sent tens of millions in tax money to the International Planned Parenthood organization to promote and perform abortions in other nations. One of the life-saving actions Mitt Romney will take immediately if he becomes president is to reinstate what is called the Mexico City Policy.

8. Pro-Life Bills: The House has approved several different pro-life bills that never made it through the Senate in part because President Obama steadfastly opposed them and lawmakers knew they would be vetoed if they reached the White House. Romney has committed to signing more pro-life bills that limit abortions and protect unborn children. “I will advocate for and support a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion,” Romney said, for example. Should Romney win and Republicans take the Senate on Tuesday, pro-lifers expect that more federal pro-life laws will be approved.

9. UNFPA, Forced Abortion: In 2009, the Obama administration sent a $50 million check to the United Nations Population Fund. That’s the pro-abortion group that has been accused of supporting and working in concert with Chinese family planning officials pushing women into forced abortions. That will change if Romney is elected. Romney has said he would undo that funding, saying, “I will reinstate the Mexico City Policy to ensure that nongovernmental organizations that receive
funding from America refrain from performing or promoting abortion services, as a method of family planning, in other countries. This includes ending American
funding for any United Nations or other foreign assistance program that promotes or performs abortions on women around the world.”

10. Abstinence, Stem Cell Research, International Abortion Promotion, Etc: If you spend some time looking through Obama’s abortion record, you’ll see the Obama administration promoted abortion and embryonic stem cell research multiple times, de-funded abstinence education and pregnancy centers, and promoted abortion worldwide. There are hundreds of things presidents can do to promote the pro-life agenda that don’t receive considerable attention. On each of these items, pro-life voters can expect President Mitt Romney and important personnel in his administration will be approaching issues from a pro-life perspective.

 

I don't know about you, but when I stand before God, I want to be able to say that I voted for the person most likely to do what can be done to build a "Culture of Life" instead of the current demonic "culture of death" that Obama champions.