"D.S." should not mean "Death Sentence"

I was catching up on this week's headlines and come upon this article.

This article calls attention to parents of children with Down Syndrome fighting for the continued acceptance of these precious people. I have known the worst cases and the best, and it is a tragedy that 90% of those parents told their child will suffer this disability will chose to terminate that young life before it gets a start! To be fair to these parents, most of those that consent to the test are predisposed to abortion as an option anyway. But nonetheless, I salute these parents of Downs children who are speaking out.

By the way, this seems to be largely non-political, and is not linked to any pro-life group.

Redefining morality?

Riding high on what is arguably "bad science," the New York Times in a short editorial calls morality that is defined by how "humans behave with other humans" as antiquated. They "emphatically disagree" with traditional values when it comes to abortion and homosexuality -- two sins that destroying society -- while upholding the morality of "saving the planet."

The true science that upholds the true humanity of developing is disregarded in favor of false claims that went out with microscopes! As for homosexuality -- the open practice of such anyway -- the Times would insist that in is totally acceptable IN SPITE OF the verifiable facts of its dangers.

For over thirty years we have been losing the war with the children of the sixties -- and now they think they have the upper hand. It is time for us to stand up against the travesty of "Secular Progessives." Tonight I saw the movie Amazing Grace. This movie tells the amazing story of how William Wilberforce spent the better part of two decades bringing an end to slavery in the British Empire. The movement behind him did this by wide publication of the TRUTH. Against the odds, with the support of his friend, William Pitt (the youngest ever prime minister), he succeeded. John Newton, of course, was a big supporter of Wilberforce. He convinced him to persue the cause against the odds.

Where is the likes of William Wilberforce in our Congress today? Is there a presidential candidate of the caliber of William Pitt?

If we return to traditional values then we won't have to worry about our stewardship of the planet. If we care about the weakest among us, we will care about the world we leave to them.

Fifty Million Killed

Fifty Million Dead! That's more killed per day than were killed on 9/11 !

The last thirty-four years have NOT seen an improvement in the lives of America's women. And it is NOT the fault of the political or religious right with a "continuing prejudice" against the fairer sex.

Abortion on demand has slacked off a bit in some places - such as South Carolina - but it is not all together clear why. I mean, really, the very ones that would be seeking abortions are those that never saw life outside of the womb. It can be reasonably assumed that around twenty-five million of those abortions were to the developing lives of girls, many of who would undoubtably grown up as "victoms" of society and "used" by the men in their lives!

But the numbers seem to be about the same year by year. Of course, we have gone from 200 million to 300 million in those three decades or so. And so, the "rate" of abortions has fallen. But our politicians can't seem to uphold the nations abhorance to "partial birth" abortions. That is, if you can call the court system "political." And you know it is (even if they deny it).

And so, here it is. After two weeks of silence, I rant again!

We pro-lifers have "science" our side and still continue to stumble politically. A conservative president gets two appointments to the Supreme Court in one year and we still have to "worry" about a "swing" vote in a pseudo-conservative put in by a previous "conservative" president. You'd think that with FIVE of NINE justices being Catholic the pro-life issues would be a "slam dunk." Not so. A "Kennedy" holds the cards in the Court even as a far-left Kennedy takes over a "ruling" position in the Senate. No relation. But we wonder. Hmmm....

Enough for now.

Dr. Erick Keroack - Has PP met its match?

The liberal elite is running scared! In the euphoria of the midterm election results, they hoped that the "thumpin'" wound have moderated the president. So he appoints a pro-life advocate to the Dept. of HHS!

An "unchastened" Bush appoints OB-GYN Dr. Eric Keroack as undersecretary that needs no confirmation who supports "traditional values" and this is how the media elite react:

The NY Times

... whose method of trying to dissuade women from having an abortion includes spreading the scary and medically inaccurate myth that having an abortion steeply increases the risk of breast cancer. The group also has a policy against dispensing contraception even to married women. It has stated on its Web site that the distribution of contraceptive drugs or devices is “demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness.”

... promoted the novel argument that sex with multiple partners alters brain chemistry in a way that makes it harder for women to form bonding relationships. One of the researchers cited by Dr. Keroack has called the claim “complete pseudoscience” unsupported by her findings.


The Washington Post

"Dr. Keroack, an obstetrician-gynecologist, is about to start work at the Department of Health and Human Services, overseeing federally funded family planning programs. To put it simply, the Bush administration's choice to direct the federal effort to make contraceptives available to low-income women works for a group that doesn't support using contraception. What comes next -- a science adviser who doesn't believe in evolution?"

----

It seems that at least in minor appointments Mr. Bush is appointing those with traditional values to stem the liberal tide. The arrogance of the liberal elite is what is really scary. They have been telling lies and half-truths for so long that they believe their own propoganda!

I have seen the evidence for breast cancer risks, for example, and I see real sustainable data that not only shows corelations but physical mechanisms for such risks. And to lambast an organization that seeks to uphold the dignity of women (though with politically incorrect reasons) seems to be a slippery ground, don't you think?

Though I am Protestant and not strictly in the camp of traditional Catholic teachings on contraceptives, I can see where an organizaiton like A Woman's Concern could take a stand against "dispensing contraceptives." In light of the declining fertility rates among the "developed" nations, it seems a little disingenuous to deride those that disuade contraception! That Dr. Keroack "works for" such a group as an advisor shouldn't disqualify him to work for a conservative government, should it?

And what would be wrong with a science advisor who doesn't believe in evolution? :-)