Skip to Content

Abortion

Unwanted segment of the population

John Elefante - This Time

Gender abortions: criminal charges not in 'public interest'

Over in the UK, telegraph.co.uk:

Doctors who agreed to arrange illegal abortions based on the sex of an unborn baby have been told they will not face criminal charges, despite prosecutors admitting that there is enough evidence to take them to court, it emerged on Wednesday night.

Every law legislates morality. The question is not “when?” but “whose?”

Seen at liberallogic101.com:

liberal-logic-101-464

The Supreme Court resolved the constitutionality of blue laws in McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961)….The Court, in reviewing the history of blue laws, ruled that nonreligious reasons for the laws had been propounded since the 1700s. Secular argument for blue laws included the idea that it was good for the government to encourage people to take a day off work for rest and relaxation. In addition, the Court ruled that the employees could not make an Establishment Clause claim because they did not allege that their religious freedom had been infringed. They had only claimed the law had caused them economic harm.—http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Blue_Laws

Obama Judicial Nominee Calls Abstinence Education ‘Unconstitutional’

I believe that sex ed should be the responsibility of the parents.  At the very least the parents should need to consent to the participation of their child in any program at school.

Abstinence is the most reliable, and moral, option of birth control.  To remove it as a viable alternative from the curriculum of a sex ed program is irresponsible.  To deem it criminal activity is ludicris.  Seen at cnsnews.com:

The Senate will consider the nomination of Cornelia Pillard, a vocal abortion advocate who said abstinence education was unconstitutional for violating “reproductive justice,” to serve as a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a hearing Wednesday.

Major papers reject pro-life ad - image of baby "too controversial"

Amazing picture of life at 20 weeks.  When the reality of what the little lump of tissue actually looks like is promoted, it becomes too controversial for the MSM.  Read the whole story at liveactionnews.org:

A national pro-life organization is outraged after three major American newspapers rejected a pro-life ad as “too controversial.”

The Chicago Tribune, USA Today, and the LA Times refused to run an advertisement created by Heroic Media.

The ad features a hand holding a 20- to 24-week-old baby with the quote, “This child has no voice, which is why it depends on yours. Speak Up.”

Heroic Media Executive Director Joe Young said he was shocked and angered that the media outlets were willing to talk about the issue but were unwilling to show the reality of life at 20 weeks.

“I am disturbed that these papers would run article after article promoting the notion that abortion is a victimless act without consequences,” Young said. “The fact remains, children who are unique individuals – never again to be duplicated – are being killed in the most violent way imaginable and they feel the excruciating pain of that death.”

The newspapers took issue with the image of the baby.

Late-term abortionist advocates toilet delivery

While the pro-choice protestors in Texas chant "Hail Satan," we get the following helpful advice from an abortion clinic in New Mexico. Seen at humanevents.com:

The latest video in the “Inhuman” series on late-term abortion from LiveAction features both a counselor and a doctor at a clinic in Albuquerque, New Mexico telling a woman who asks about complications during a 27-week abortion procedure to park herself on a hotel toilet, unlock the door, call the clinic, and wait for help to arrive:

Syndicate content


© Copyright 2014 mangrums.net

about seo