Today’s stories -
- New York’s Leading Lesbian
- Healthy Body, Sick Soul
- Sunday Death Discount
- Beach Bishop Busted
- Improv Doesn’t Pay
- A Predatory Lifestyle
Today’s stories -
- DOMA’s Last Stand
- Habit Of Contradiction
- Malta Militant Defense
- Brilliant Brazilian Brothers
- Tweet Truth
Today’s stories -
- Student Healthcare Eliminated
- Obama’s Manager? Catholic Traitor
- Montana’s Contraception Mandate
- Wright And Wrong
- Facebook Video Game
Today’s stories -
- The Cost Of Abuse
- Perverted Pro-Abortion Prayer
- Pro-Life Rights Re-enforced
- Here Come The Shock Troops
- Rainbow Indoctrination
To watch this video from the source Click Here
Today’s stories -
- Big Budget Healthcare
- Suing Sebelius
- Father Guarnizo Speaks Out
- Organized Dissent
- Gray Lady Gaff
Using Election Law to Expose Abortion
Written by Father Frank Pavone, National Director for Priests For Life
Longtime pro-life activist Randall Terry is running for President. He is running as a Democrat against President Obama in the primaries.
No, he does not expect to win the primary, but neither is that his motive for running. Whatever one thinks of the man himself or his history, what he is doing in this election deserves some attention from every pro-life person humble enough to realize that there is something to be learned from everyone else.
Many organizations — including my own — have produced pro-life ads for television and have had some success in running them. Two major issues arise. One, of course, is money. The other is censorship. Many times have we and others been told by television outlets (and print and radio, for that matter) that, although we had the money to buy the ad time, they did not want to air something against abortion, because it would be too upsetting and controversial for their audiences.
I have been told this regarding ads that do not show anything graphic, but simply talk about abortion, and in some cases, show a beautiful, living child.
But there is a way to bypass the censorship: run in a political race, and create ads under the auspices of your election campaign. Randall Terry is currently a federal candidate. By virtue of that fact, he has the law on his side, permitting him to run ads that are both controversial and graphic. The Federal Communications Commission requires stations it has licensed to run the ads of federal candidates within 45 days of a state’s primary election or caucus. He is ready to run ads in 17 states and 40 markets including Minneapolis, St. Louis, Denver, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Honolulu and Salt Lake City.
And it’s not just about Randall Terry. There are four candidates for the House of Representatives who are using the same approach: Missy Smith, Angela Michael, David Lewis, and Gary Boisclair. They are utilizing election-related law to communicate a message to large segments of the public, a message which under just about every other circumstance would be censored without recourse.
The ads show the American public what an aborted child looks like. As I have always said, America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion. What pro-lifers have in mind when they say the word “abortion” bears little or no resemblance to what many have in mind when they hear the word. We know abortion is dismemberment of a living human child; others think of nothing but “freedom, choice, and women’s rights” — important ideas and realities, indeed, but which do nothing to help one understand what an abortion actually is.
And if people debating abortion cannot even agree on what abortion is, much less whether it is right, then the debate cannot even begin.
Once again, this is not about Randall Terry, nor about endorsing him. It is, rather, about encouraging more pro-life people run for office, and use the law to their advantage to expose the reality of abortion. To read this article from the source, Click Here.
By Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life
“She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn” (Luke 2:7).
The fact that there was no room for Jesus, Mary, and Joseph in the inn at Bethlehem on the first Christmas should make us wonder, because the birth of Christ was foreseen and planned by God from all eternity. Hundreds of years before it happened, the prophets announced he would be born of a virgin (Is. 7:14) and that Bethlehem would be his birthplace (Micah 5:2). Many other details of his life and death were also foretold. Did God, then, forget to make room for his only Son? How is it possible that there was no room, when the child born at Christmas owns the inn, and Bethlehem, and the world, and every inch of room in the whole universe?
Obviously, God did this on purpose. There was no room in the inn, because this demonstrates that world has rejected God. The world makes no room for the God who created it. There was no room in the inn because God wanted to show that His Son comes as a Savior, to reconcile a world that is at enmity with God. Being turned away from the inn foreshadows the fact that the Savior himself will be rejected, despised, and ultimately crucified, and that all this was part of God’s plan from all eternity. Ultimately, the lack of room in the inn symbolizes the lack of room we make for him in our hearts. When our hearts are filled with all kinds of other desires than God, we gradually crowd him out altogether.
No room at the inn also means that we fail to make room for our brothers and sisters. The first great commandment is to love God, and the second is like it: Love your neighbor. Christ willed to be left out, because he is always in solidarity with those who are left out, shut out, and crowded out. That is the position of the unborn children today. They are crowded out of the busy schedules of so many people doing so many good and important things, but who don’t have a finger to lift to protect the lives of these children from abortion. They are crowded out of legislative agendas, preaching schedules, career plans, and volunteer activities. There’s just too much going on already; there’s no room in the inn.
Christ comes at Christmas to change all that. Today, he does not seek an inn; he seeks room in our own hearts and lives. And he asks that as we welcome him, we welcome everyone whom he welcomes, including the children most defenseless and forgotten. We welcome the Divine Child, and in doing so, we welcome every child. As we celebrate Christmas, we sing in “O Holy Night” the words, “Chains shall he break, for the slave is our brother, and in his name all oppression shall cease.” Amen! Let oppression cease and let Christmas come for the unborn! To read this article from the source Click Here
Today’s stories -
- Abortion Pain
- Manipulating Moms
- Abortion Health Risks
- Militant Homosexuals
- Green Funerals
By Janet Morana
Thirty years ago, I was in the ninth month of my second pregnancy when I received what was a very unsettling referral for a sonogram, which was not nearly as routine in those days. My eyes never once left the technician’s face as she studied the monitor. You can imagine my doubled apprehension as she left the room without offering me the small mercy of that nonchalant, “everything-is-normal-and-on-track” smile. When the OB-GYN followed her back into the room moments later, I really needed him to compensate for the technician’s serious breach of sonogram etiquette. Instead, he informed me that I was pregnant with twins.
I left that appointment just as frightened as every other woman who has ever received the same news. At the time, I already had a 23-month-old daughter; my financial resources, while not as limited as those of many new mothers, were light years away from reassuring; and my mental preparations had been for one baby, not two.
As the news began to sink in over the following few days, however, my fear got some competition from a growing awareness of my personal strength. I was still terrified, naturally, but on some level I made a decision to battle that fear, to refuse to let it take me without a fight. I remember throwing open the phone book (the Google of the ’80s), and aggressively tracking down the contact information for the local Twins & Multiples club.
In “The Two Minus One Pregnancy” article in The New York Times Magazine (Aug. 14), Ruth Padawer interviews women who, after becoming pregnant with twins using fertility drugs and procedures, decide to undergo a selective reduction. The women describe with illuminating candor their fears of the challenges of birthing two newborns at once; of not being the best mother they can be to all of their children, including those already born; of being spread too thin. And so they abort one of the twins.
The story begins:
As Jenny lay on the obstetrician’s examination table, she was grateful that the ultrasound tech had turned off the overhead screen. She didn’t want to see the two shadows floating inside her. Since making her decision, she had tried hard not to think about them, though she could often think of little else. She was 45 and pregnant after six years of fertility bills, ovulation injections, donor eggs and disappointment – and yet here she was, 14 weeks into her pregnancy, choosing to extinguish one of two healthy fetuses, almost as if having half an abortion. As the doctor inserted the needle into Jenny’s abdomen, aiming at one of the fetuses, Jenny tried not to flinch, caught between intense relief and intense guilt.
To read the rest of the article from the source, Click Here