Partial Birth Abortion-Here We Go Again

Take a good long look at the picture above. That child was the victim of a partial birth abortion.

Offended? GOOD--those who endorse abortion SHOULD be offended. They should also be ashamed and sick enough to their stomachs at actually seeing the results of that which they advocate they're throwing up for months afterwards and haunted by their nightmares.


How about this one for some nightmares?




Or this one?




Or this?



Too graphic you say? I shouldn't show things like this? I shouldn't show the effects of infanticide because it might offend the liberals who advocate infanticide? The same liberals who go after a child dressed in a soldier's uniform for Halloween in honor of his soldier father and is beaten to a pulp by his classmates while the classmate's mothers' stand by? The same liberals who post in the comment thread the child honoring his father should have been killed (the child was about 10)? The same liberals who want to give our 11 year old daughters birth control pills at school without a parent's permission? The same liberals who think it's a good idea to let underage girls have abortions without parental permission? The same liberals who think the Folsom Sex Fest is wholesome and not a slap to decent people, not a slap to Christianity and take their children to see it? THOSE LIBERALS? I MIGHT OFFEND THOSE LIBERALS?

TOUGH SHIT.

I have absolutely no sympathy for them--NONE.

The following came to me in my email from the American Center for Law and Justice.

Dear [Redacted], It would be understandable if you felt cheated, frustrated, or even angry. After all our efforts to see the horror of partial-birth abortion officially banned in this country ... After Congress voted to ban it, the President signed the bill into law, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld that law ... Even after all this, within minutes of that Court ruling, pro-abortion members of Congress introduced a bill which would totally thwart the will of the people - reversing the decision of Congress and the President and undoing the ruling of the Supreme Court. Give your immediate online gift of support and stand with the ACLJ right now to turn back this challenge to the federal ban on partial-birth abortion! These members of Congress have put some ''spin'' on their bill: they call it the ''Freedom of Choice'' Act - but it's not really about freedom of choice. It's actually a slap in the face to the American people ... it's a tip of the hat to the abortion doctors and their lobbyists ... and it's a very real threat against the lives of unborn babies. Support for this bill flooded in from the entire abortion lobby -- the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, N.O.W., NARAL: Pro-Choice America, and others. Which means millions of dollars will almost certainly flow into the campaign for this legislation. The ACLJ truly needs the generous support of members like you today to mount an aggressive counter-offense, or all our vital efforts in support of the unborn will have been in vain. Senators Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Barbara Boxer, and others have introduced this bill (H.R. 1964 and S. 1173) in one of the most brazen political moves we've seen in years - but it is also extremely dangerous, because if passed, it would enshrine abortion into law. [Emphasis mine] In order to stop this tidal wave, we absolutely must take VERY aggressive action through our Washington, D.C., office. I have set in motion several lawyers and a senior research team. We are dealing with members of both the House and the Senate. We can't simply work to prevent passage; we must also prepare to litigate in case the bill does become law. I assure you, we will fight every step of the way. But we need your help. Right now, the ACLJ is carrying an enormous workload on top of this issue, and as a result, we urgently need a generous online tax-deductible contribution from you today. We are returning to the Supreme Court of the United States with not one but two simultaneous cases in which public displays of the Ten Commandments are under fire. The work required for these twin cases is of MONUMENTAL proportion. It's a massive number of work-hours - and you can see why we really need your support now in this current fight for life. Here's the bottom line: your personal part in this effort is vitally important. Please let us hear from you right away. Thank you.

And so goes the slippery slope into socialistic thought. Rid yourself of those you don't want and find a way to justify it.

Then, find a way to legislate who is allowed and who isn't allowed to bear children. Those not allowed will have their children aborted and will find themselves sterilized. Like the eugenics project of Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood). Like China with their one child per family law.

Where does the slippery slope end? How long before euthansia is justified? How soon before we become like the Netherlands that allow infanticide AFTER the child is born because the parents may not like the child--for WHATEVER reason, wrong eye color, wrong hair color, wrong sex--how long?

Below is the summary of the Freedom of Choice act from the ACLJ website:

The Freedom of Choice Act

While the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 in Gonzales v. Carhart, abortion supporters in Congress have acted quickly to counteract the decision. Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Jerrold Nadler have introduced a bill, called the Freedom of Choice Act, that would dramatically expand federal protection of abortion rights beyond what is required by Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The bill would invalidate many federal, state and local abortion laws, including the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

The Freedom of Choice Act would create an absolute right to abortion that would override any federal, state or local law that simply "interfered with" that right, no matter how compelling the justification for the law. For instance, the Freedom of Choice Act would likely invalidate the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act even though the statute is constitutional. The findings section of the Freedom of Choice Act states that Congress’s decision in the partial-birth abortion case "permits the government to interfere with the woman’s right to choose to terminate pregnancy . . . ." Since the Freedom of Choice Act would invalidate any federal, state or local law that interferes "with a woman’s right to choose . . . to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability," federal and state partial-birth abortion bans would likely be invalidated.

This attempt to not only reverse the Supreme Court decision but to expand the right to abortion must be dealt with aggressively. Our Government Affairs staff is already working on congressional efforts to defeat this bill. I have assembled a legal team that is already reviewing possible legal challenges if this bill were to actually be passed. While I am not surprised by this move, I am very concerned. We must work aggressively to protect the most vulnerable among us. We have prepared a special video presentation on the Freedom of Choice Act. Click here if you’d like to view it.

Take a good look at the sponsors: Barbara Boxer and Jerrold Nadler. Look who supports it: Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Barbara Boxer.

Put a stop to this atrocity--don't let any more children die from this sanctioned infanticide.

My previous posts on abortion:

My Pet Rant of All Time-Abortion
Thank You Supreme Court 9--Or At Least the 5 of You With Morals
THIS Is Partial Birth Abortion
The State of Nevada v. Darryl O. Clark, NDOC Prisoner ID 24347

Sphere: Related Content

San Francisco Priest Tells nancy pelosi she is PRO-DEATH

This article is directly from Spree at Wake Up America here.

I am a practicing Catholic, and me and my family have been participating in Tridentine Masses for approximately 3 years now. It shames me to call pelosi, kerry, kennedy, etc. fellow Catholics, particularly with their shameless pandering to their own aggrandizement rather than following their inculcated moral teachings.

For myself and my own conscience and soul (yes, I believe in those old fashioned "things"), I examine my conscience nightly; I read my Bible daily (those that know me personally know I'm going through a particularly trying time with my children and the Bible above all else brings clarity and comfort); and I generally participate in the old-fashioned notion of Sacramental Confession. I do NOT participate in Holy Communion without having cleansed my soul first. To my chagrin, I have not been to Mass, Confession or Holy Communion since my mother's funeral a little over a year ago. I have strayed from the teachings of my youth multiple times and I have done a considerable amount of maturing. I am thankful and grateful to God for giving me the opportunity to mature in wisdom and in life, through Him. I know my responsibilities and He hasn't let me down; I've let Him down.

I hope to NEVER be included with such wastes of skin as the aforementioned pseudo-Catholics, in their actions or deeds. For such people to continue to claim Catholicism while giving in to secular values and the culture of death is abhorrent and I think this priest is SPOT ON TARGET. To claim, well times change is NO EXCUSE--times may change; God and His teachings and His values are eternal and unchanging.


Now, the post from Spree:

As usual, I follow the links that I find in my email, this particular email came to me from Political Pistachio, so, I followed the links, then started a few searches and lo and behold, a letter from a San Francisco Priest telling Nancy Pelosi that she should stop calling herself a catholic, that her record belies high moral standards, she should not receive Eucharist when she attends mass and compares her to Nazi's as well as telling her, in their view she is Pro-Death..

WOW.

Harsh words from a priest.

Do you think I exaggerate?

Here is the PDF of the letter and below is the letter in full.

Fr. John Malloy, pastor of Saints Peter and Paul Church in San Francisco, penned this “Open letter to Nancy Pelosi,” which was recently published in the parish bulletin.

Nancy, you are fooling yourself and I fear fooling many good Catholics. You are simply not in sync with the Catholic Church. Until you change your non-Catholic positions, you should stop calling yourself Catholic. Your record shows that you support embryonic stem cell research, Planned Parenthood, contraception, family planning funding, allowing minors to have an abortion without parental consent, and are against making it a crime to harm a fetus, etc. etc.

The fact that you favor married priests and women priests certainly would not classify you as conservative, but your answer to the question are you a conservative Catholic was:

“I think so. I was raised in a very strict upbringing in a Catholic home where we respected people, were observant, were practicing Catholics, and that the fundamental belief was that God gave us all a free will, and we were accountable for that, each of us. Each person had that accountability, so it wasn’t for us to make judgments about how people saw their responsibility and that it wasn’t for politicians to make decisions about how people led their personal lives; certainly, to a high moral standards, but when it got into decisions about privacy and all the rest, then that was something that individuals had to answer to God for, and not to politicians.

”That sounds fair and tolerant, but your record belies high moral standards.

The NARL rates you 100% pro-abortion. Your statement: “To me it isn’t even a question. God has given us a free will. We’re all responsible for our actions. If you don’t want an abortion, you don’t believe in it, [then] don’t have one. But don’t tell somebody else what they can do in terms of honoring their responsibilities. My family is very pro-life. They’re not fanatics and they’re not activists. I think they’d like it if I were not so vocally pro-choice.”

Do we not elect politicians to make laws that help people honor their responsibilities, such as protecting life itself? Can politicians not tell someone else not to kill? If you can kill a baby in the womb, Nancy, why not outside of it? Oh wait, you are in favor of partial birth abortion, so-called because the baby sticks out of the “mother” about halfway, while the “doctor” sucks out the baby's brain. That seems comparable to the choice the Nazis made killing six million Jews.

Yes, Nancy, we (together with your pro-life family) would all like it if you were not so vocally pro-choice, i.e. pro-death. Until your choice is in line with Catholic doctrine, please, Nancy, do not receive the Eucharist when you attend Mass.

Rev. John Malloy,
SDBSan Francisco, CA

Ouch, gotta hurt when your own proclaimed religion, doesn't even want you because your claims do not match your actions.

For those that would say the Priest overstated what Partial Birth Abortion is, take a look for yourself and see if the Priest is right? (Pictures of the process are at that link)

You can also link to a former post of mine called THIS is Partial Birth Abortion here. Fair warning to the faint hearted--my post is EXTREMELY graphic in showing exactly what this form of murder does to children.

Sphere: Related Content

THIS is Partial Birth Abortion

The murderer uses an ultrasound to locate the child's leg.

The murderer then pulls the child's leg out of the birth canal.

The murderer then delivers the rest of the child, with the exception of the child's head.

The murderer then punctures the base of the child's skull with scissors and then widens the hole.

Finally, the murderer proceeds to suck the child's brain out, finishes delivering the child and leaves him or her to die.

This is ugly. This is murder. This is what 5 morally upright Justices (Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas) on the United States Supreme Court upheld as banned today, April 18, 2007.

This is what 4 morally corrupt Justices (Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, Breyer) voted against upholding today, April 18, 2007.

This is what Bill Clinton eliminated the ban on and paraded his "women who had the procedure" on national television, bragging they had participated in this murder.

This is what Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, among others, support--the freedom of a woman to participate in this murder.

There is no morally acceptable reason for this act. There is no morally acceptable reason to commit this murder upon innocents and get away with it based on alleged choice.

When a child is given the choice to live, then and only then will I acknowledge a woman's right to choose. Otherwise, I don't want to hear all the crap about reasons for committing this kind of murder at this stage in a pregnancy or any other. It's murder, pure and simple.

Procedural diagrams are here: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA_Images/PBA_Images_Heathers_Place.htm

Other images are from Google Images.

Sphere: Related Content