Pro-life blog buzz 12-17-13
by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli
We welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.
- Live Action News dissects Planned Parenthood’s 2012 annual report, which shows that the organization performed 327,166 abortions – allowing them to maintain their “largest abortion chain” status:
For taxpayers who don’t want to fund abortions, this should be especially troubling, considering that Planned Parenthood is raking in a whopping $540.6 million in taxpayer funding, or $1.5 million per day. This accounts for 45% of their revenue. Compare that to their other sources of revenue — private contributions, 26%; non-government revenue, 25%; and “other”, 4% — and it is overwhelmingly clear why the abortion industry fights to keep organizations like Planned Parenthood on the government dole. Without taxpayers to leech off of, Planned Parenthood alone would lose half a billion dollars.
- Euthanasia Prevention Coalition updates us on five states (Connecticut, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Massachusetts) that are currently debating legalizing assisted suicide:
Americans need to become more aware of the threat that assisted suicide poses. Even though polls indicate that more Americans oppose assisted suicide than support it, very few Americans are aware of the push being mounted by the assisted suicide lobby. - Kansans for Life says “The Internal Revenue Service has proposed new rules for political activity by nonprofits – overturning more than 50 years of settled law – in order to conceal the true political record of pro-abortion politicians.”
- Abstinence Clearinghouse links to blogger Matt Walsh’s response to a young man who was ridiculed by his high school sex ed instructor for believing in abstinence.
- Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life explains the ruling of Doe v. Gomez, decided on December 15, 1995, which obligated Minnesota taxpayers to pay for abortions, “something not required by the U.S. Supreme Court“:
The Supreme Court’s Doe v. Gomez decision established a new state constitutional “right” to abortion on demand. This supposed right would remain protected by the state Constitution even if Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision legalizing abortion in the United States, were to be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.Doe v. Gomez allows abortions for reasons such as “stress” or “discomfort.” It forbids the state to “interfere” in any way with a woman’s “decision making” regarding abortion.
Doe v. Gomez also obligates the state — and thus, taxpayers — to pay for abortions…. From June 1994 (under an earlier decision) through 2011, state taxpayers paid more than $19.9 million for 62,252 abortions, according to MDHS. In 2011 alone (the most recent statistics available), state taxpayers paid $1.2 million for 3,693 abortions (MDHS). The state does not report how many women have been hurt or killed from these abortions.
- Down on the Pharm updates readers on a previous blog about Joshua Ackley (pictured right, foreground), a publicist representing Girl Scouts of America by day and Homopunk band member by night. Since this news about Ackley’s lifestyle has been exposed, he has been moved to a less visible position within the GSUSA organization. Apparently, “[the] worry among the scout moms was that, with this stuff on his mind, he’s not the person to be interacting with the girls, or representing the scouting organization.”
- Judie Brown of American Life League explains the difference between ethics and morality:
We see that ethics today are not always grounded in sound, moral reason and common sense. In fact, as one expert defines it, today we actually have two sets of medical ethics—and the worst of it is that the wrong-headed set is prevailing. On the one side we have secular bioethics. On the other we have the moral law.The problem with secular bioethics is, of course, that the natural law is tossed out the window in favor of what one or two so-called experts believe to be the best idea at any given time for deciding what is acceptable and what is not. This is where professionals like [the pro-infanticide] Dr. Minerva found their calling.
But on the other side of the aisle we find the professionals, including physicians, educators, lawmakers, and common ordinary folks like you and me who understand that making rational decisions or providing intelligent solutions to complex questions requires a grounding in the moral law.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“Joshua Ackley (pictured right, foreground), a publicist representing Girl Scouts of America by day and Homopunk band member by night. Since this news about Ackley’s lifestyle has been exposed, he has been moved to a less visible position within the GSUSA organization. Apparently, “[the] worry among the scout moms was that, with this stuff on his mind, he’s not the person to be interacting with the girls, or representing the scouting organization.” ”
Considering that the band has been inactive for several years and there is no evidence he’s continued any possibly worrisome activities that I’ve found, this is seriously terrible reporting. There have been many people with less than beautiful pasts that go on to do other things, are we saying you have to have a perfect background to work with children, or within any “respectable” organization? The hand wringing over his videos amuses me too, they were pretty mild for punk (which, like half the point of punk is shocking people with inappropriate stuff), and they were years ago. I see no evidence he’s been involved in hurting anyone (that I would agree should prevent him from working around children or for a children’s agency), or anything like that. Just some shock videos in a punk band.
So unless people can point to evidence that he’s still engaging in questionable behaviors, I’m gonna call this “moral panic” nonsense. And no, the fact that he’s gay (maybe? idk) isn’t reason enough to ban him from the GSUSA.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/boy-scouts-of-america-reconsidering-ban-on-open-homosexuality
Sorry I don’t follow links to Lifesitenews, they are disgusting.
Though I think excluding kids for being gay is pretty awful, I hope they don’t reverse their decision to allow gay scouts (who still have to not engage in sexual behavior, just like other scouts).
So does that mean that the two who gave you likes don’t approve of Lifesitenews either. Interesting twist :)
One of those likes is my own, I accidentally “liked” my own comment. So, there’s only one person besides me who dislikes Lifesitenews so far, it’s probably JDC.
I refuse to support or condone any website that allows the kind of hate they do in their comment section. At least Facebook will delete stuff if you report it, Lifesitenews will ban you for trying to argue that gay and bi men aren’t pedophiles, or that they shouldn’t all be thrown in prison for life, or that it’s not okay to kill them (seriously). Nasty stuff on there.
Is the nasty stuff from the moderators or from commenters or both?
Commenters. But considering that they delete you if you argue too much against it, and they don’t delete the nasty comments so it’s hard to give them a pass.
Deluded lib prolifer, we do know that many people are desensitized by constant exposure to weird media. People who get busy with raising kids tend to have decreased exposure to the trash, get a bit re-sensitized to it, and don’t see it as a good thing for little Brownies and underage Girl Scouts.. Yes Ackley is resurrecting his band and a record of recent shows is on the internet. You should look a little harder before asserting an absolute negative. At the time I first passed on the news, I saw notices and reviews of his November 30 2012 show and efforts to find a record label to accept the new album. From my own blog, which is linked above…
You’ll be comforted to know that Josh has brought the Dead Betties back together, and they performed on Nov 30 in New York. O Goodie! They’re putting out another album, (No Love Lost, shopping for a label to accept it.
“it’s probably JDC.”
Yes it was.
I suppose a video about showing the strangling of women fits in with the positive image of girls. GSA thinks this is an appropriate spokesperson? I gave up on them some time ago.
Is Reality retiring and we’re getting Deluded now?
BGSA is an organization that sacrificed its original mission in order to appease the liberals. I don’t think that membership would suffer, if it was their concern. They are a private organization supported by dues. I guess more fitting would be a description that their mission statement is adjustable to whichever the wind blows. No backbone there at all.
Joshua Ackley does not fit their mission statement at all. This “controversy” is akin to Sasha Grey (the porn star) reading to elementary school children.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/11/12/porn-star-defends-reading-to-elementary-school-children-after-parents-outraged/
Anyone here under the impression that her lifestyle provided a good moral compass to those kids? Didn’t thinkso.
Same with Ackley – his lifestyle cannot be reconciled with being able to provide good moral lessons to kids. My parents always told me that actions speak louder than words.
Pharmer, I’m man enough to admit when I’m mistaken and I was, so I apologize. I just couldn’t find anything that said that they were still active, all the articles I found said the band was inactive. If his band is currently active and has the inappropriate content that it did in previous years, yes I think that it’s inappropriate to have that around kids. My main beef is when people make mistakes years ago and get punished for them for years. Some of that is necessary, clearly if someone abuses someone else, you don’t let the abuser ever have power over children, but in many cases with other issues people can grow up and change.
“Is Reality retiring and we’re getting Deluded now? ”
I’ve commented here for years under another name. And I’m not a pro-abort.
“BGSA is an organization that sacrificed its original mission in order to appease the liberals. I don’t think that membership would suffer, if it was their concern. They are a private organization supported by dues. I guess more fitting would be a description that their mission statement is adjustable to whichever the wind blows. No backbone there at all. ”
Or they realized it’s damnably cruel to exclude children for things they cannot help. Religion is mostly a choice, I have no beef with them excluding atheists or agnostics. I do have beef with them excluding a child over a thing like sexual orientation, which the child has no control over. The child can control his behavior, and again, he can choose to abide by the Scout rules which include avoiding premarital sex. If he breaks Scout rules I think the exclusion is fine. Just for existing, I don’t think that’s right.
And btw this is why I have such trouble convincing myself that many Christians actually believe it or mean it when they say that gay people can be moral as straights if they choose to not engage in homosexual behavior. It’s like some of you think LGBT people are intrinsically bad, and should be excluded even without any behaviors.
Like I said Thomas, people leading untoward lifestyles (like porn, or shock punk bands) currently are probably not appropriate to lead children. My issue is when people refuse to accept that not everyone is their past.
And I was referring to those selected to lead children and those that engage in incompatible lifestyles while attempting to be of authority to children. Ackley is not his past, he is his present.
Deluded Lib Prolifer, Joshua Ackley would not have made my blog if he had grossed himself out with his kinko punk music and had decided to stop it.
The fact that he resurrected the same band and music made him flush-worthy in his capacity as a direct influence on young girls. I mistyped the year in my last post. He’s been doing shows with the Dead Betties THIS year, 2013.
We all know where you stand on homosexuality and ANYONE who dares to speak against it, deluded lib prolifer.
Give it a rest. please
I refuse to accept that it’s bad to exist, that people deserve to be excluded just for being something. As long as people post stuff like that ill argue. It can’t be bad just to be.
I don’t think it’s wrong for the Scouts to exclude anyone who actually practices homosexual behavior, they’re a private organization and it’s wrong to involve yourself in such things. But I just can’t except it’s wrong to not be straight. It’s just how some people are. I thought it was the behavior was wrong, not the orientation, but people keep arguing with that. I can’t let that one go.
DLPL: I take offense to being called “straight!!!” How do you know I may not have a gait dysfunction??? :) :) :)
At least we agree that they are a private organization, which I stresssed in one of my comments above…
I just don’t find any of this funny Thomas.
Why would you have a problem with a heterosexual man taking offense to being called straight? Have you been bitten by the PC bug? It’s okay to call me HS for short (heterosexual). I don’t have a problem with that designation at all but the “straight” reference makes me limp. :)
Oh, lighten up Jack. I am trying to make light of a very “uptight” discussion here. Haven’t you got that?
I’ve got to ask a serious question though: why is it that liberals in general cannot take a joke? :)
Fine I will refer to you as solely heterosexual. It seems like people might like the straight designation though. “Straight” as in correct, I guess.
I can take a joke, I joke around a lot. This particular subject though, it just seems like people refuse to consider LGBT people as just people, like there’s something seriously wrong with being what you are even if you realize that it’s immoral to act out the behavior, and understand that your orientation isn’t something that should be acted out, you’ll still be excluded. I just can’t joke about it. I don’t understand how some Christians expect people who aren’t heterosexual to feel safe or want to learn more about Christianity at all.
I had a smiley face to all that talk about referring to me as HS in case you have not noticed.
Lately I am under the impression that if you take offense to anything posted, it becomes a big deal. And you take offense quit a bit across the threads. So just for the heck of it I wanted to read you reaction if I had posted anything about taking offense. I got my answer.
There are a few subjects that I think are a very big deal, and I take them seriously. Yes. ‘Tis probably what you’re referring to. And again, you’re criticizing me instead of my views. Maybe you could give me a logical argument for excluding non-practicing non-heterosexual people from religious organizations, you are the one who posted the article and wanted it brought to attention, so I’m assuming you agree with that.
I am not criticizing you at all Jack. I just think that lately this blog revolves around you..
All I do is comment with my opinions. Seriously. It’s not more than you do. I don’t get that criticism at all.
Please refer to Carla’s December 19, 2013 at 10:34 am post. There is your answer. And after that consider how you made a big deal out of my December 19, 2013 at 2:43 pm and December 19, 2013 at 3:06 pm comments and just took them in a direction they were not even intended to go in. And then this:
“I refuse to accept that it’s bad to exist, that people deserve to be excluded just for being something. As long as people post stuff like that ill argue. It can’t be bad just to be.”
You lost me on that one big time. Who, when and which thread? Please refer me to any comment’s content that reflects what you claim. If you do that I will retract my summation that this blog revolves around you and publicly apologize.
“You lost me on that one big time. Who, when and which thread? Please refer me to any comment content that reflects what you claim. If you do that I will retract my summation that this blog revolves around you and publicly apologize.”
I was explicitly (I thought) referring to people wanting the Boy Scouts to exclude people who are not heterosexual, absent any behaviors that goes against their moral code. I can accept it’s wrong to act out non-heterosexual inclinations (or heterosexual inclinations outside of marriage, I suppose), I cannot accept that it’s okay to exclude people from organizations because of the inclinations. If I see people post articles (like you did) that seem to support this viewpoint, I will argue against it. I just will, because I think it’s wrong.
“Please refer to Carla’s December 19, 2013 at 10:34 am post. There is your answer. And after that consider how you made a big deal out of my December 19, 2013 at 2:43 pm and December 19, 2013 at 3:06 pm comments and just took them in a direction they were not even intended to go in.”
If I took you wrong I apologize. I’m not sure where I went wrong. I think Carla is misunderstanding me, because I’m not even defending homosexual behavior or saying that the Scouts should accept people who engage in such behaviors.
Look you can’t expect people to just agree, if someone disagrees they are probably going to say something. That’s not about me, that’s what everyone does. Everyone has issues that are dear to them that they cannot let slide.
Thomas why do you keep turning this into about me instead of the viewpoint? I seriously don’t understand. If you agree that the Scouts should reverse their allowance of non-heterosexual Scouts (and they haven’t changed their opinion on Scouts having sex, so obviously any non-heterosexual boy would not be allowed to have premarital sex, just as heterosexual boys are not), then defend your viewpoint instead of accusing me of “making it all about me” if I disagree. I actually didn’t mention me besides saying “I think” or “I believe”.
I understand. Sort of like me posting gazillion comments on the “legal” prostitutes thread, yes. But my polemic started and ended on that thread if that makes any sense.
“But my polemic started and ended on that thread if that makes any sense.”
This is because the “legal” prostitute issue was on one thread. One thread, out of over a dozen per week. Homosexuality on all the issues that go along with that come up much more often. So I cannot keep quiet and let ignorance or things that I disagree with be said without objecting. You get it?
And I’m not being angry, or rude, or anything. Just stating my viewpoint as factually as I can make it. If you dislike my viewpoint you can argue or ignore, but accusing me of making it about me for stating a view is an unfair criticism imo.
Ignorance DLPL is defined from where one sits so to speak. In other words, its relative. You see you, just made it all about you by proposing that if people disagree with you they are ignorant.
You may not realize this but you made it all about you starting last week and NOONE ELSE did. Refer to your first tantrum on this blog that morphed you into your present moniker and all posts that made it all about you since then. Everybody was made aware of that transformation and the personal reasons for doing so have become a big deal dumped on this entire blog. Am I not speaking the truth? You always seem to backtrack for some reason after having a fit.
Am I ignorant because I question the reasons liberals want to force even a private organization to change their mission statement? Am I ignorant because I do not accept that homosexuality/bisexuality should be normalized. Am I ignorant because I challenge some of that stuff you write about on those issues and sexuality-related matters in general?
No tolerance of opinion from DLPR it seems, just accusations of ignorance.
This is not critism DLPL, it is constructive criticism and that’s a big idifference. Maybe I have initiated this exchange few comments above because I have had my fill of homosexuality/anal sex/bi-sexuality references from you. Everything discussed seems to revolve around that lately. Maybe it should and maybe I am just completely off my rocker?
In any case I want to thank Carla for that one post to DLPL…
“Ignorance DLPL is defined from where one sits so to speak. In other words, its relative. You see you, just made it all about you by proposing that if people disagree with you they are ignorant.”
That’s the stupidest thing I have ever heard (does thinking someone said something stupid make it “all about me”?). Everyone has things they think people are ignorant about, I also think people are ignorant for supporting abortion. It’s not making it “all! about me” to say s
Today I learned that if Thomas R doesn’t want a subject discussed, it shouldn’t happen. Or more accurately, you only want homosexuality mentioned by people who don’t disagree with you. Like I said, if someone says something I see as ignorant about it, I’m going to correct it. You don’t have to read my comment, no one is forcing you. I refuse to let some things be said or implied without rejoinder.
“No tolerance of opinion from DLPR it seems, just accusations of ignorance.”
This is rich. Absolutely rich. You complain about liberals every ten seconds and have all kinds of Choice names for them, among other things. I explained very clearly why I found some of your opinions ignorant, if you can’t handle your views being challenged then just ignore dissent. Or you could try and make a valid argument to support your views.
For the last time, YOU are the one making it about me. I am stating an opinion about a subject but you are taking issue with ME not my views. So stop making it personal, because I am not.
And its not “constructive criticism” because the only way to implement such criticism is for me to lie or stop posting all together.
Liberals take us farther from God and his teachings DLPL. This Christmas perhaps, we will be a witness to few miracles of liberals returning their focus on what matters most. Liberals are not bad people and I apologize if I came across with that impression. They are lost and need to be guided to find their way. Progressivism is an evil that has such a stronghold on them. Most cannot defend themselves against it. Hopefully this time of reconciliation will not be in vain.
“Liberals take us farther from God and his teachings DLPL. This Christmas perhaps, we will be a witness to few miracles of liberals returning their focus on what matters most.”
This is your opinion and it’s fine. It’s not any different from any of my opinions on how I think the world works and how it should be.
“Liberals are not bad people and I apologize if I came across with that impression. They are lost and need to be guided to find their way.”
I don’t think conservatives (or Christians) are bad people and I apologize if I came across that way too. I do think they have some bad views sometimes. I can say that just as much you say you don’t agree with liberalism or liberals.
“I do think they have some bad views sometimes.”
Will just have to agree to disagree DLPL. I think that conservatives are the best thing since sliced bread and the invention of the wheel (in that order). :)