Jivin J’s Life Links 8-5-11
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- The Durango Herald covered a protest at Mercy Regional Medical Center, a Catholic hospital which has Planned Parenthood abortionist Richard Grossman as a member of its medical staff:
Grossman, who writes a monthly column for the Herald called “Population Matters!,” said he respects the group’s right to demonstrate.
“I honor their beliefs,” he said, “I don’t agree with them.”
And how exactly does he honor pro-life beliefs?
- Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocates plan to sue to prevent North Carolina’s informed consent law from taking effect:[House Majority Leader Paul] Stam said he isn’t surprised that certain groups are planning a lawsuit. “If you read abortion case law, half of them are Planned Parenthood suing over something,” he said.
See the news report from WRAL.com:
- It’s amazing what years of abortion advocacy can do. In 20 years, at least 5 women in Maryland have died from anesthesia-related issues during abortions yet now is the first time abortion clinics will be regulated in the state:
Under procedures drafted by the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the state would for the first time regulate clinics that perform surgical abortions, said spokeswoman Karen Black. Facilities that offer only abortion pills, and physician’s offices that perform occasional abortions would not be affected.
The department has no listing or data on abortion clinics because they have never been regulated, Black said.
This year, lawmakers in Virginia approved regulations for abortion clinics, and officials in Pennsylvania and Kansas took similar steps.
It is estimated that about 20 sites in Maryland perform surgical abortions. 5 of the sites are in Montgomery County.
“We don’t know where the sites are unless we look in the Yellow Pages,” Black said.
If you read abortion case law, half of them are Planned Parenthood suing over something
This got a chuckle from the law student. 100% true.
5 likes
I can never comprehend the opposition to informed consent and waiting periods. What are they afraid of? If a woman will change her mind b/c she was given all the information, isn’t it better that she get that information BEFORE making an irreversible decision that she will regret? She’s going to find out eventually – let her find out when she can DO something with the information and let it inform her decisions.
Ultrasounds should be done prior to abortions anyway. When you go to the OBGYN when you’re pregnant they explain the u/s image to you (here’s the fetus, this is the heartbeat, there’s the head). Are those drs lying to women? If not, how can people claim the information is biased. It’s just factual information. Same for information about aid that might be available. Should a woman abort out of desperation when there is help she might not realize is available?
8 likes
Amen, CT!!!
THANK YOU!
1 likes
The tally indeed grows very troublesome:
Opposed to accurate medical information.
Opposed to waiting periods to help ensure that the decision is the right one (in their eyes, anyway) and not based on fear or coercion.
Opposed to parental consent laws.
Opposed to regulation by government or appropriate governing-body.
Anyone want to take a gander at what requirement they’ll try to eliminate or block next?
4 likes
I would add another one to your list Maestro
Opposed to anyone reducing their bottom line, the ring at PPs cash register. ”Cha-ching!! Did anyone just hear a cash register ring. Abortion is their cash cow their ”raison d’etre”(sp?).
Now all pro-aborts chant together
‘We come to mutilate and evacuate, we only exist to seal your baby’s fate.” DOA! DOA! DOA!” (I know it is a little corny, but it is soooo true.)
Did I hear someone write on this blog is “Abortion: The only surgery that is “successful” when you end up with a dead baby.” I’ll take it one step further, Abortionist: The only so-called “healthcare professional” that is paid to ensure that you end up with a dead baby not a live one. Sick, sick sick.
2 likes
“Abortionist: The only so-called “healthcare professional” that is paid to ensure that you end up with a dead baby not a live one.”
It’s like death row for a woman’s womb, only the one being killed didn’t do anything wrong.
While I’m absolutely opposed to the death penalty, it is very telling that even those terrible criminals who are sentenced to it still have certain protections under the law: due process, food, water, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment (besides the obvious, anyway).
“raison d’etre (sp?)”
Strictly speaking, the first “e” in “etre” has what’s called an “accent circonflex” (which I don’t know how to translate) that looks like an exponential carat, but as far as English is concerned, what you wrote is correct.
1 likes
There’s a similar situation in the Chicago area. Dr. Vinod Goyal is on staff at Alexian Brothers, which is a Catholic hospital. Dr. Goyal is an abortionist who owns and operates SIX abortion clinics. I have written to both Alexian Brothers’s president and the head of the Congregation of Alexian Brothers, both of whom replied that because he doesn’t perform abortions on their property, there’s nothing they can do….
1 likes
A poem I wrote about abortion. Perhaps it will inspire someone out there to change their mind about getting an abortion. I can only hope.
Tiny Refugees
They come into this world
As tiny refugees
From a place where truth is timeless.
Each is a spirit son or daughter of God.
Their tiny souls
Hold tiny hearts that beat!
They’re not made of rubber.
They feel
And they bleed!
Each has a spirit
With very real needs.
They start out on life’s journey
As the most defenseless among us.
Each has a voice
Though not fully developed.
They each come to earth
With infinite possibilities.
Each with their very own wish:
Life.
– Jenny Ann Tibbetts
2 likes
Beautiful poem Jenny. I love it. Can I share it with teens (giving you credit as the author of course) at a pro-life event in the future?
Maestro I believe that the death penalty has it’s place when there is a premeditated. heinous murder committed and there is no question who committed the crime (DNA, etc)., if there is questionable evidence I think life in prison is a much better, fairer alternative than executing a possibly innocent person. That is my take but I know others disagree. But you are correct that felons are given much more consideration than innocent, unborn babies in our nation and world.
2 likes
Prolifer L, I will hardly dispute the belief that certain crimes make one unworthy of life; being Catholic, I believe that most people don’t actually deserve to live in the first place (in case you’re wondering, I count myself in that non-deserving category, being a sinner and all), but in His great love for us, God grants us our lives anyway.
However, I do argue against the death penalty for several main reasons … but for brevity’s sake, I’ll just keep it simple (what I was originally going to post for this was VERY long).
Simply put, when a convicted criminal can be contained and rendered non-threatening to the general public, why do we still need to kill that person and why should we?
One thing to consider is what’s really necessary to protect the lives of others.
The police have a duty to protect the lives of civilians (and their own, as much as possible). Ideally, in dangerous situations, this is done using non-lethal methods (negotiations, bean-bag guns, tasers, tear gas, solid kicks to the face, etc.), but when a man walks into a mall with an assault rifle and a lot of ammo and starts shooting, these options are often unfeasible. In such cases, since the assailant cannot be contained, potentially lethal methods may be necessary and this is rightly called self-defence and defence of the public.
(NOTE: I say “potentially lethal” because even in that situation, if the police are able, shooting the gunner in both shoulders – and both knees, if necessary – can effectively neutralize him as a threat, but if the shots are just a little off target, they can hit a major artery, a vital organ or the head, potentially killing him. Not the desired outcome, but an unfortunately necessary risk.)
This changes, though, when the assailant is captured, shackled, caged, and/or escorted by armed guards. Barring an escape attempt (in which case we revert to the above scenario of lethal versus non-lethal), this person is no longer a direct threat to the general public. As such, the situation no longer requires so drastic a measure as execution.
In this case, this is not self-defence or defence of the public; this is retribution.
Shouldn’t we be above this? As I asked earlier in this post, why must this person die when he or she is no longer a direct threat and this status can be maintained?
In case I’m coming across the wrong way, I’ll just point out that I’m not trying to portray you as cold or anything like that, I’m just trying to understand the given justifications for executing people when we can contain them.
God bless.
1 likes