No First Amendment Rights for Conservative Students

 Email This Post

I watched an amazing video on YouTube of a University of Wisconsin sophomore and student senator, Roderick King, knocking over 4000 white crosses that “Pointers for Life,” a pro-life club, obtained permission to place on campus grounds.  The display was meant to symbolize the 4,000 unborn babies who are aborted each and every day in the United States of America.

So far, no disciplinary action whatsoever has been taken against Mr. King, and the student government has decided to put the issue off until next semester….uh…that’s in the Fall.  I guess they figure we’ll all forget about it and they don’t have to punish one of “their own.”  Whom do I mean by that?

Ian Ivey, with The Leadership Institute, a conservative organization which trains and places conservative leaders into public policy positions, the media, and schools said:  “It was an astonishing thing to see the video of the student senator just with clearly no respect, no regard at all to either the rights of the students who had set up that display, or the intent of the display and the real meaning of that display.  This is the kind of thing that happens on college campuses on a regular basis, where conservatives face this kind of oppression…mostly from students, but especially from student government associations who are thoroughly dominated by a leftist agenda.”

Planned Parenthood Subsidized by Title X?

 Email This Post

According to the Wall Street Journal (5/23/08), The Federal government distributes about $280 million a year among the thousands of clinics to subsidize the cost of birth control, cancer screening, HIV testing and other reproductive care for low-income patients.  Known as Title X, the program serves five million men and women a year.  By law the money can’t be used for abortion procedures.

But about one third of Title X patients receive their care at reproductive health clinics run by Planned Parenthood, which is also the nation’s largest abortion provider.  Critics say the federal grants indirectly subsidize Planned Parenthood’s abortion services by keeping a steady stream of money flowing into the clinics.

President Ronald Reagan imposed rules over two decades ago that barred clinics that received Title X money from performing abortions or referring patients to abortion clinics.  Opponents filed suit, and the regulations were put on hold for years as the court battle played out.  The United States Supreme Court eventually upheld the regulations - but a year and a half later, President Clinton rescinded them.

Since Mr. Bush took office, activists on the right have been pleading with him to reinstate the Reagan-era rules.  In one of his first official acts as President, he imposed restrictions on foreign family-planning aid, preventing U.S. grants from going to groups that perform or promote abortion.  He has declined, however, to implement that rule domestically. 

Planned Parenthood of America relies on government grants and contracts, including Title X, for roughly a third of its nearly $337 million budget, according to its recent financial support.  Before the Bush administration is over, a final push is being waged to pressure the President to use his executive authority to order the change.

Are Disabled Children Dispensable?

 Email This Post

Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) is adamant in his support for abortion on demand.  Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) is as adamant in his support for the illegalization of abortion.  However, as odd as it may seem, they have joined forces in a bill (S1810), the “Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Condition Awareness Act.”  Their bill would require parents faced with pre- and post-natal diagnoses of disability to receive “timely, scientific, and nondirective counseling about the conditions”  as well as “up-to-date, comprehensive information about life expectancy, development potential, and quality of life”  for a child born with Down syndrome or any other genetic disability, as well as “referrals to providers of key support services.”

Their hope is that when parents receive a more complete picture, more of them will welcome their disabled babies into the world, instead of choosing termination.  Nice bedfellows.

Planned UNParenthood is Anti-Family

 Email This Post

Talk about dangerous and destructive!  A Johnson County (Kansas) grand jury is investigating Planned “Un”Parenthood to determine whether the abortion provider complies with Kansas laws on parental notification and the 24-hour waiting period.

The grand jury panel has asked for medical records of sixteen women who had abortions in 2003.  Planned Parenthood is refusing to turn them over, claiming patient privacy right violations.  However, the grand jury wants the following patient information:  date of birth, date of last menstruation, dates and times of medical procedures, and notifications and/or consultations with patients.  The grand jury is not asking for any patient-identifying information like name, social security number, address, phone numbers or next of kin - they can be eliminated before the information is sent on to them.  So much for patient privacy violations.

Additionally (according to the Kansas City Star), charges allege that Planned Parenthood performed illegal later-term abortions in 2003 and falsified, forged, and failed to maintain related records.

The ACLU and Planned Parenthood are also pushing San Diego’s school board to end long-standing policies which require parental notification when students are pregnant and contemplating abortion, and parental consent before students leave campus, including trips to abortion clinics. The ACLU and Planned Parenthood are claiming that this violates the privacy rights of students and that the mentality is “antiquated and dangerous.” 

I’ve had conversations with some of these ACLU and Planned Parenthood types over the years, and it’s absolutely scary how paranoid they are about parental involvement in their children’s lives.  They are thoroughly convinced, it would seem, that parents universally impregnate and/or beat their children, and that only they are the grand protectors of children.  If that’s so, I wonder why Planned Parenthood gets in trouble for not reporting molestations when adult males bring in minor females for abortions?  Gets mighty confusing to me.

Happily, the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) sent a letter to the school board, urging them to stand by their parent and family-friendly policies and offered free legal assistance if those policies are challenged in court.  PJI President, Brad Dacus stated in the Standard Newswire that “Contrary to ACLU and Planned Parenthood propaganda, parental responsibility is not antiquated or illegal.  It is indispensable to a decent society.  We urge the San Diego School Board not to cave in to pressure from radicals who ignore common sense and distort constitutional principles.”

PJI’s affiliate attorney commented:  “Parents are morally and legally responsible for their minor children, so it is just common sense that they should be aware of their children’s whereabouts, particularly if they are being subjected to life-altering medical procedures, such as abortions.”

Planned UN-Parenthood

 Email This Post

Frankly, calling abortion (the termination of a life within a woman’s uterus) “reproductive health,” is a ridiculous - but effective - way of obfuscating the realities.  A January 18 report from the Associated Press (which excludes California because its government does not provide data) estimates that in 2005 there were 1.2 million abortions - down from a peak of 1.6 million abortions in 1990, but still happening in 20% of the cases where conception has occurred.

Half of the 1.2 million U.S. women who have abortions each year are 25 and older, while only 17% are teenagers.  Since abortion became legal, there have been roughly 50 million abortions in the US, and more than one-third of adult women are estimated to have had at least one. Continue reading Planned UN-Parenthood…

The Real Meaning of “Choice”

 Email This Post

I had an experience recently I will not soon forget.  I had a conversation with a woman with whom I’ve become quite friendly who told me a fascinating story.
    
She was adopted.  Although she is very close to and loving with her adoptive family, she was quite interested in knowing something about her birth mother and father - for medical history reasons (I never quite believe that, considering the technology available today for diagnoses) and for curiosity’s sake.  She realized and accepted that there would probably be “the good, the bad, and the ugly” to learn, and she was right. Continue reading The Real Meaning of “Choice”…

A Moral And Ethical Dilemma For Abortion Rights Supporters?

 Email This Post

What a conundrum for liberals who support any and all abortions at any time for any reason under the rubric of “pro-choice” freedoms.  Liberals are also supposedly for diversity.  Well, here’s the problem:  If a woman is free to abort the human being developing in her body for any whim, shouldn’t she be able to abort the baby if it has been genetically tested and the results are not “pleasing?”

The New York Times  “Week in Review” “Prenatal Tests + Abortion = ???” (May 13, 2007) dealt with this growing concern about pro-choice abortion morality and ethics:

      “Abortion rights supporters - who believe that a woman has the right to make decisions about her own body-have had to grapple with the reality that the right to choose may well be used selectively to abort fetuses deemed genetically undesirable.  And many are finding that, while they support a woman’s right to have an abortion if she does not want to have a baby, they are less comfortable when abortion is used by women who don’t want to have a particular baby.” Continue reading A Moral And Ethical Dilemma For Abortion Rights Supporters?…

Making Judgments About The Supreme Court’s Latest Decision About Abortion

 Email This Post

I just about lost it reading Linda P. Campbell’s syndicated column (www.realcities.com/mld/dfw/news/columnists/linda_campbell/17137857/17137857.htm) about the Supreme Court’s abortion decision not being simple or neat. Let me take some of her points one by one, as she explains her abhorrence of any controls over any abortion, in addition to the barbaric sucking out of a baby’s brain after the head emerges from the birth canal (partial birth abortion). 

First, she says “And of course, a woman who’s about to undergo an abortion ought to understand the details, risks and implications just as much as she should before a tummy tuck, hip replacement, or appendectomy.” Continue reading Making Judgments About The Supreme Court’s Latest Decision About Abortion…