(Prolifer)ations 11-18-09

Thumbnail image for blog buzz.jpgby Kelli

Spotlighting important information gleaned from other pro-life blogs...

  • From Culture Campaign: a NJ high school student has brought suit against her school administrators for violating her free-speech rights. According to the AP, the principal of Bridgeton High School banned the student from wearing a "LIFE" armband or participating in the Pro Life Day of Silent Solidarity because doing anything "religious" was not allowed. The Alliance Defense Fund has taken up her case....
  • ProWomanProLife discusses how normalizing teen pregnancy in society is not necessarily a bright idea:
  • If we are going to say teens will be teens - they are going to have sex anyway, then I'd advocate for teaching them about marriage, making their already very serious sexual commitments permanent, and worrying less as a society about whether our kids have advanced degrees.... Enough already with engaging in adult behaviors while studiously avoiding - or glorifying - the sometimes difficult adult outcomes.

    Thumbnail image for tribute_headshot_SRawlings-Blake.png

  • According to Catholic Review, the Baltimore, MD City Council is busy harassing pro-life pregnancy care centers.

    A new bill, to be voted on after Thanksgiving, "would require centers to post signs if they do not provide abortion or birth control. Failure to do so could result in a $150 daily fine."

    Council President Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (pictured left) claims she introduced the bill to promote "truth in advertising" to "make sure no one is intentionally or unintentionally misled." The bill (not surprisingly) has the backing of Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland. An attempt to broaden the bill to require abortion clinics to post their services was rejected.

    Pro-lifers have organized a petition drive in an attempt to prohibit the City Council from passing any such measures.

  • Wesley J. Smith writes about the pro-suicide Dutch Right to Die Association in the Netherlands, which has recently made "humane" suicide tips available online. Oh, but no worries: the information is supposedly only available to paid, logged-in members. That just makes it all better, doesn't it?
  • [Photo attribution: duburnsfoundation.org]


    Comments:

    I am not sure that forcing only pregnancy centers to have such a sign is legal. It seems discriminatory because of the many types of health info/counseling places that don't offer abortions, only these pregnancy centers would be fined for not having a sign, while all of the other places don't have to pay a fine for not having a sign. Because of the fine imposed on such a narrowly defined group, it seems they are outside the law. The ordinance would have to be written much more broadly and include far more establishments in order to be legal. I don't know how they could actually come up with language that would be legal. Basically they can't just say that only you have to have a sign or pay a fine while everyone else that doesn't do what you don't do doesn't have to pay a fine for not posting that they aren't doing something.

    Posted by: hippie at November 18, 2009 3:25 PM


    Here is a link to a related story about the Baltimore City Council. The article/op-ed letter expresses the pro abort/pro contraception point of view, labeling CPC assistance as "misinformation".

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/bal-op.pregnancy17nov17,0,4536953.story

    Posted by: jsable at November 18, 2009 3:43 PM


    I would like PP to hang a couple of signs.

    We kill babies and wound mothers.
    We lie, coerce and deceive.
    We kill for money.
    We only offer one choice here.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at November 18, 2009 4:31 PM


    Tinker v. Des Moines already protects a student's right to wear arm bands with a political message.

    Posted by: Ella at November 18, 2009 4:38 PM


    Re" the Bridgeton High School (NJ) story:

    It's getting very annoying that the demand for "separation of church and state" has morphed into the "separation of Church and the human race".

    Enough already. (No happy holidays from me this year. It's going to be "Merry, Merry Christmas!".)

    Posted by: Janet at November 18, 2009 4:50 PM


    An attempt to broaden the bill to require abortion clinics to post their services was rejected

    Wouldn't look too good, would it? Especially the part about assistance to child molesters.

    Posted by: Fed Up at November 18, 2009 5:22 PM


    Tinker v. Des Moines already protects a student's right to wear arm bands with a political message.
    Posted by: Ella at November 18, 2009 4:38 PM

    Then I guess the ADF won't have too much trouble. :)

    Posted by: Kelli Author Profile Page at November 18, 2009 5:35 PM


    Fed Up @5:22,

    And if PP were forced to post their services, THEY WOULD HAVE TO USE THE "A" WORD!!

    * * *

    "A new bill, to be voted on after Thanksgiving, "would require centers to post signs if they do not provide abortion or birth control."

    Think about it, "no abortions" is a good thing to be advertising. If I had any doubt, as a pro-lifer, I'd be less likely to go inside what I thought might be an abortuary.

    Posted by: Janet at November 18, 2009 5:37 PM


    I'm actually okay with them saying, "We don't do abortions here." Like Janet said, it's one more step to making actual choice- prenatal care, adoptions, whatever women who intend to keep the baby after birth need, et cetera- not only logical but also acceptable. Women are kind of demonized when deciding to keep a baby like, "Nooooz! You're releasing mutant spawn!"

    And would you PLEASE stop branding this as a religious argument, people. I don't know about Xalisae or Pro-Life Atheist or all of the other pro-equality, pro-secular, or pro-religion-other-than0Christianity people out there, but I'm getting so annoyed. I've said this a thousand times but seriously- I'm a frigging agnostic.

    Garg!

    o_O

    Posted by: Vannah at November 18, 2009 6:46 PM


    Pregnancy Care Centers are being targeted. They are going to have to post signs OR be fined $150/day. It is just another way to try and shut out those that really DO provide help to women and their children. Before birth and beyond.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at November 18, 2009 7:13 PM


    This is happening statewide in Maryland. It has just been introduced in the Montgomery County Council by at-large member Duchy Tractenberg. It so happens that she is a former director of the Mid-Atlantic NOW. But of course, that's just a coincidence -right? No conflict of interest here -nosirree!

    Posted by: Janet Baker at November 18, 2009 8:18 PM


    Hmmm. Perhaps they should permanently mount a few graphic posters to show what they do not do. Why stop at words? No, wait. We do not want to be as childish as the councilwoman who is acting out.

    If they want "truth in advertising," the center could post statistics that confirm that minorities are the ones that are most exploited by abortion profiteers, and if the mothers agree maybe even post a picture or two of the infants saved through their intervention.

    Posted by: Jerry at November 18, 2009 8:26 PM


    President Obama, nor any of these pro choice dunces, have even witnesed an abortion first hand, but whe some of them do, they become pro life, lke Abby. RJ

    Posted by: RJ Sandefr at November 18, 2009 9:14 PM


    BS"D

    What part of the First Amendment (... shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech ...) do the Baltimore City Council, Planned Parenthood, and NARAL Pro-Abort Maryland, not understand? I think this is likely to wind up working its way through the courts.

    Posted by: Stephen Mendelsohn at November 18, 2009 11:12 PM