Christ Hospital obstetrician (and abortionist) shares birthday with mom and triplets

From the Associated Press, April 18:

Talk about a birthday party.

steven ambrose 2.png

Evelia Rivera spent her 25th birthday at a suburban Chicago hospital delivering her triplet sons: Jayden Edwin, Jordan Michael and Julian Kobe.

But turns out that wasn't enough of a celebration.

Dr. Steven Ambrose [pictured right] who helped perform the Cesarean section on Wednesday at Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn was celebrating his birthday too....

Rivera says at first she thought the doctor was joking, but soon staff at the hospital starting wishing him a happy birthday.

Her husband, Edwin Rivera, says they all thought the coincidence was "pretty cool," but the Chicago couple has more important things to focus on.

Evelia Rivera could be released from the hospital as soon as Sunday and the boys will likely come home next month.

Ah, Steven Ambrose. I know him well.

This is a heartwarming story, but there is another side to Ambrose. Ambrose was the OB/GYN Dept. chairman while I worked there. He was one of the few who committed induced labor abortions.

Ambrose was Catholic. Monica Miller and I leafleted his church once, much to his consternation. He walked right behind us, removing the leaflets as quickly as we placed them on parishioners' windshields.

Don't know if Ambrose still aborts. But pregnant mothers should be aware that the same hands that bring life may also bring death. Mothers should always ask.

No justice, no peace.

[HT: proofreader Laura Loo; photo via Healthgrades.com]


Comments:

Ambrose was Catholic.

A very bad Catholic. :(

Posted by: Louise at April 19, 2010 7:26 AM


Hands that shed innocent blood.... I encourage everyone who is his patient to leave and go to another doctor. I once left the doctor's office when I found out she was pro choice. My sister thought I was nuts but I will not knowingly do business with hands that shed innocent blood.

Posted by: Susie at April 19, 2010 7:53 AM


Creepy. Blech.

And I second Louise's comment. Ambrose may call himself Catholic, but he ain't.

Posted by: Jennifer at April 19, 2010 7:54 AM


"Mothers should always ask."

If the mother isn't anti-abortion, why should she ask?

Posted by: Hal at April 19, 2010 7:54 AM


Good for you Susie!


..how can this killer go and recieve communion, what a creep.

Posted by: Jasper at April 19, 2010 8:09 AM


Agreed. Find a prolife dr. who shares the same convictions and does not do abortions or refer for them.


Hal,
If the mother is a pro abort then she should be thrilled with a pro abort dr. yes?

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at April 19, 2010 8:34 AM


How creepy! I just had this very discussion on facebook. There was an abortion clinic in a ritzy town nearby that closed in 1995. Since I was 15 at the time I was not aware there had ever been an abortion clinic there. When a lady in my church told me about it I googled it to read all the old news articles about it. I then google the docs and found the one doctor Stephen Krell is still practicing in the area. I wondered how many of his patients KNOW he used to be a full-time abortionist?

One of my old highschool friends read it and couldn't believe that was a doc in the practice that she went to! In fact, that abortionist was the very doc who had examined her after she gave birth to her daughter. She was sickened.

you never know. I called my local pro-life coalition and found two 100% pro-life ob/gyn's in my area so that is who I am going to. Pro-life women have to ask....cause you never know.

Posted by: Sydney M. at April 19, 2010 9:00 AM


Disgusting that he has my last name. Thankfully, he is not a known relative.

Posted by: Tom Ambrose at April 19, 2010 9:20 AM


Imagine the economic impact we'd have if every pro-life mother refused to give birth with the help of an abortionist! Hit them in the wallet, where it hurts.

Posted by: Kelsey at April 19, 2010 9:46 AM


CATHOLIC IN NAME BUT NOT IN DOCTRINE...MAYBE HE SHOULD REREAD THE CATECHISM?????

Posted by: shelly at April 19, 2010 9:56 AM


Scary. I always figured that when I got pregnant someday I'd find a Catholic doctor and not have to worry, but apparently not...

Posted by: Marauder at April 19, 2010 10:06 AM


Marauder,

Pro-life mothers talk about their doctors and come to learn which ones are truly pro-life. Call church friends, your priest, and local women's centers for recommendations.

* * *
If the mother isn't anti-abortion, why should she ask?

Posted by: Hal at April 19, 2010 7:54 AM

You are assuming a women who isn't anti-abortion is PRO-ABORTION? A woman should know which kind of doctor she's dealing with. What if her baby has Downs Syndrome and the doctor insensitively recommends she aborts the baby? That could be devastating if she never thought about that scenario before. A pro-life doctor doesn't recommend aborting Downs babies.


Posted by: Janet at April 19, 2010 10:43 AM


Hal,

Even women that don't want to acknowledge the unborn as people in order to justify abortion still want their child treated as a separate patient if it's a child she wants.

No woman would want a man that kills unborn children to treat her unborn child, unless of course she's trying to keep her options open if she decides for some reason that she doesn't want her child anymore and wants an abortion by someone she knows.

Posted by: Jacqueline at April 19, 2010 11:52 AM


If the mother isn't anti-abortion, why should she ask?

Posted by: Hal at April 19, 2010 7:54 AM

You are assuming a women who isn't anti-abortion is PRO-ABORTION? A woman should know which kind of doctor she's dealing with. What if her baby has Downs Syndrome and the doctor insensitively recommends she aborts the baby? That could be devastating if she never thought about that scenario before. A pro-life doctor doesn't recommend aborting Downs babies.


Posted by: Janet at April 19, 2010 10:43 AM

Oh, and then there is my MIL who had her tubes tied when she gave birth to a baby with DS, against her wishes.. they had her sign the consent while she was heavily medicated. She had wanted more children, my young SIL is the only child she has ever or will ever have. (She is the hubster's step-mother.)

Posted by: Elisabeth at April 19, 2010 12:36 PM


Elisabeth, how horrible! This was a gross violation of a patient's rights. Doctors like this should be sued, and if possible, kept from practicing.

Posted by: Lori Pieper at April 19, 2010 1:11 PM


Yeah... it was 18 years ago now... it's something she never really mentions to anyone. I think she reacted much like a rape victim (not that I blame her) and simply wanted it in the past.

Posted by: Elisabeth at April 19, 2010 2:47 PM


Susie, I'm glad you left that doctor. I also had to see a doctor who was working as a fill in for my own one day. I am due to give birth any day now. I'll be 40 weeks on Thursday. Anyway, I am seen at a teaching hospital, and I am aware that they will perform abortions there. Anyway, this "doctor" came in and we talked. She wondered if I was at all interested in sterilization after birth. Then she went on to tell me that she was in fact a PC doctor and she performed abortions.[I have no clue why she mentioned that] I told her that every fiber of my being was against abortion. She totally dismissed me with a bit of an evil laugh and went to get me some literature.....PC literature at that!!! These papers discussed many methods of contraception, and explained how "SAFE" everything was. Including the IUD! It tried to say that an IUD will not cause an abortion. She said to me, "You are feeding into right wing propaganda." "If men had to squeeze a baby out of their penis, there wouldn't be ANY children." She laughed some more.My jaw dropped!!! I told them at the front desk that I didn't want that wack job to examine me again!

Posted by: Heather at April 19, 2010 2:55 PM


Heather, how terrible! I would have kindly told her where she could shove that IUD.

I really like my OB. I was worried after this pregnancy that they would pressure me into having a tubal ligation because it will be my 3rd c-section. She told me there was absolutely no reason why that HAD to be done, and she would examine me during the c-section so that we could make an informed decision later about what we wanted to do.

We decided that I wouldn't get a tubal under any circumstance because of the increased risk of future tubal pregnancies, and she was totally supportive of that decision.

When I had a suspected TIA a few weeks ago she did not try to force a delivery at all, but waited on all the tests and monitored the baby and we all felt comfortable letting me continue the pregnancy (I was at 27 weeks at the time, so while the baby probably would have been ok, we didn't want to take any unnecessary risks!)

It just makes a world of difference to have a doctor who is not pressuring you into sterilization or abortion.

Posted by: Lauren at April 19, 2010 3:06 PM


I'm curious--what's your specific beef with IUDs? No one's really sure how they work (in the case of the copper IUDs), but the theories don't have anything that's abortificant. Of course, they can be used to induce miscarriage, but that isn't common by any means. So, what's the issue?

That being said, I get most of my lady care at Planned Parenthood, as I don't have insurance at the moment. Very kind ladies there.

Posted by: Less at April 19, 2010 3:15 PM


You seriously don't think that there is nothing abortifacient about IUDs??

http://www.babycenter.com/0_intrauterine-device-iud_3564.bc
How does an IUD work?

Both types of IUDs work primarily by preventing sperm from fertilizing an egg. They do this in a few different ways. First, they stimulate an inflammatory response in the uterus, causing changes that damage or kill sperm and that may damage an egg as well. In the unlikely event that an egg does get fertilized and survives, an IUD makes it harder for it to implant in the uterus.

That is abortifacient. It does not matter what the incidence is, there is an abortifacient component and that is why many of us do not consider the IUD an acceptable risk.

Posted by: Elisabeth at April 19, 2010 3:41 PM


Yes lauren, It's nice to have support when you come to this site. I really didn't know if I should have lo at her total ignorance or tell her to "shove that IUD"! ess, I also used to be a frequent flier to PP for my care. I had to severe the ties though. Especially after my own research on the abortion industry! As far as the IUD goes, we women have a right to know the truth so that we may make an informed "Choice" about our bodies. The paper this woman gave me said that the IUD does not cause an abortion. That is a blatent lie! Not to mention, the IUD can cause a lot of uterine problems....such as uterine perforation!! Why didn't she tell me that? Her paper said that the IUD carried a slight risk. I don't appreciate being lied to by a "doctor" who reads too much left wing propaganda!!! After all, let's be fair! I also feel that a woman's right to choose ought to include seeing a pro-life doctor if that's what she wants!

Posted by: Heather at April 19, 2010 3:43 PM


Ah, okay. The implantation line, I should have remembered. Okay, then. I disagree, but now I understand.

Posted by: Less at April 19, 2010 3:44 PM


The last part of my post was to Hal. Sorry. my capital l's aren't working. Hal, You as a PC man need to realize that as a pro-life woman, I don't want a PC doctor.

Posted by: Heather at April 19, 2010 3:47 PM


Less, it can also cause repeat miscarriages. My mother in law was told that her IUD had been causing her to constantly miscarry for the 5 years she used it in between my husband's older brothers and him. Her uterus was so full of scar tissue that they told her she would never be able to successfully carry another pregnancy. Thankfully, that prediction was wrong and she went on to have two more kids. No one told her this was a possibility before she had it implanted. I don't know any woman, pro-choice or not, who would find that an acceptable risk.

Posted by: Lauren at April 19, 2010 3:56 PM


Ah, okay. The implantation line, I should have remembered. Okay, then. I disagree, but now I understand.
Posted by: Less at April 19, 2010 3:44 PM

You disagree based upon what science? I took that from a site that has no political leanings either way and has no stake in the abortion debate. It is a scientific fact that an IUD inhibits implantation, whatever its other effects may be.

Posted by: Elisabeth at April 19, 2010 3:59 PM


Today is my beautiful 3 year old daughter Madison's b-day!! Isn't it nice that this "doctor" got to celebrate his own birthday after robbing so many dead children [children that he killed] of their own!!

Posted by: Heather at April 19, 2010 4:12 PM


Elisabeth, I disagree that a fertilized egg/early stage embryo failing to implant is equal to an abortion.

Lauren, I have an IUD. The latest IUDs do not carry an increased risk of miscarriage, unless you do, in fact, get pregnant. In that case, yes, miscarriage could be the result. And yes, I consider that an acceptable risk, for a 99.4% success rate in preventing pregnancy.

Posted by: Less at April 19, 2010 4:14 PM


Tell your daughter Happy Birthday, Heather. :)

Posted by: Lauren at April 19, 2010 4:14 PM


Less, what is the difference between taking actions to make implantation impossible vs. actively aborting? It's the same human being either way, and your actions have caused its death either way.

Posted by: Lauren at April 19, 2010 4:24 PM


lauren, thank you and God bless you!! I will!

Posted by: Heather at April 19, 2010 4:31 PM


Only a minority of eggs implant anyway. Seems to me it doesn't particularly change that, but I do understand that point you're trying to make.

Posted by: Less at April 19, 2010 4:34 PM


Posted by: Hal at April 19, 2010 7:54 AM

"If the mother isn't anti-abortion, why should she ask?"

--------------------------------------------------

Hal,

I know that this will not come as a surprise to you but even the 'dead babies r us' mob is not monolithic.

Some of these folks are not comfortable with partial birth late term abortions that are used to kill pre-natal human fetuses/premature infants after they have passed the point of viability.

It takes a creepy kind of person to choose to kill viable premature infants.

I know there are some, maybe most, of the 'choice to kill human embryo/fetus folks who do not wince at the prospect of pulling a child from the pregnant womans uterus feet first and then stabbing the human fetus at the base of the skull and suctioning out the contents of his/her cranium, but there are some who draw the line shorter rather than longer and say the prenatal human has some rights which ought to be respected.

I guess pregant women might want to know their ob/gyn is a late term abortionist for the same reason they would want to know if he is a pedophile or serial rapist or drug addict.

If they knew they would probably find some one else to see to their health care needs.

If I found my doctor voted for B.O. I believe I would have seriouls doubts about her/his ability to make rational decisions concerning my health.

Just offering some reasons for your consideration.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at April 19, 2010 4:39 PM


UGH! I am so sick of pro-abortion types who DON'T UNDERSTAND BASIC SCIENCE.

An "EGG" does not implant, Less. That is not a biological possibility. Please learn science. Where is Dr. Nadal to break it down for her?

The IUD causes constant inflammation in the uterus. It primarily works (as my doc told me, who, btw, I think is pro-choice based on things he has said) by preventing implantation. That is its primary function. How is having constant inflammation in your body healthy, Less? How could that be good for you at all?

IUD's are very unnatural and dangerous. yuck.

Posted by: Sydney M. at April 19, 2010 5:38 PM


Happy birthday to Madison! :)

"It just makes a world of difference to have a doctor who is not pressuring you into sterilization or abortion."

Yeah, any doctor who goes that route with me is going to be the target of some very not-child-friendly language. Barring some kind of cancer, disease, or injury, I think I'll wait until menopause to know I can't have any more children, thanks.

Heather, that doctor sounds absolutely creepy. I seriously wonder why someone so disrespectful of women, hostile to men, and so abortion-friendly that she tells a woman due to give birth any day that she's an abortionist would become an OB/GYN in the first place.

I hate it when doctors and other medical people spread misinformation. I'm still extremely mad at all the people who said having a pap smear "definitely wasn't going to hurt at all" - apologies for the TMI, but my cervix hurt for three entire days afterwards. If they'd told me it could hurt, I still would have been in pain, but I wouldn't have been angry at them.

Posted by: Marauder at April 19, 2010 5:46 PM


If an anti-abort woman seeks an anti-abort doctor, so be it. It's funny, I (and my fellow "Catholic" gal pals) sought out Protestant doctors back in the early 70's because the Catholic doctors wouldn't perscribe birth control pills. Guess they wanted to punish us Catholic sluts with babies!!!!! (snark off) Anyway, we got our meds and those who went to Catholic doctors got pregnant. Ain't we got fun!!!

No abortion! No contraception! More babies! Course if you can't afford them, god, the Catholic Church, and the pro-life movement will make it all better. Right? Give us a bible quote, Ken cuz that's always a winner. Ewww, Ah'm gonna burn in hell!!!!!

Posted by: Artemis at April 19, 2010 5:47 PM


Less, it is quite true that all on its own, implantation may fail to occur. It is also quite true that all on its own a miscarriage may occur at any point in a pregnancy. There is a difference, however, in knowing that something may happen naturally and choosing to do something that may cause that same thing to happen when it otherwise may not have...

It is difficult to find a suitable analogy, but bear with the crudities of the one I now offer:

Some infants die in their sleep, while rare, it does happen.

Some parents are not aware of the fact that infants should not have soft toys or pillows in their cribs. Still, most of those children, despite having these items in their cribs, survive.

Whether I am aware or not that my infant should not have a soft toy or pillow in its crib and my infant dies in its sleep due to that item being in the crib, I am still responsible for the fact that I took an action that resulted in the death of my child.

Therefore, despite the fact that I know it would probably turn out okay if I allowed my infant to have such an item in his crib, and knowing that it is a very small number of children who die in their sleep in infancy, I still choose NOT to allow stuffed toys or pillows in my infant's crib. No matter how small the statistical chances of it being a problem, I cannot in good conscience risk it.

Whereas, if my child were (heaven forbid) to die in his sleep despite my best efforts to safeguard him, my grief would not be compounded by feelings of guilt.

In the same way, even though I know there are probably times that conception occurs without implantation, I have a clear conscience that I have not done anything that would in any way raise the chances of that happening when it otherwise would not.

Posted by: Elisabeth at April 19, 2010 5:49 PM


I've said it before, Artemis, and I'll say it again - everyone has limited time on this earth, and life is too short to spend being rude and mean-spirited on purpose. Go watch a movie or call a friend or do something fun.

Posted by: Marauder at April 19, 2010 5:53 PM


Excuse me, Sydney, the blastocyst implants, not the egg. Funny how I don’t see any of you calling it a blastocyst—because that’s the technical term, and I thought you guys were all about science?

The IUD makes it impossible for the egg to fertilize because it kills the sperm and the egg. It’s metal in my uterus—of course there’s going to be some inflammation. But, ultimately, I’d rather have that than a pregnancy. You know, if I got pregnant, I’d have an abortion—wouldn’t you rather have me be inflamed than pregnant?

You may not like it, but it’s really not your choice.

Also, Marauder, paps don’t hurt most women.

Posted by: Less at April 19, 2010 5:54 PM


You may be right about pap smears, Less, but unless it's completely unheard-of for women to feel pain during pap smears and afterwards, I think doctors ought to tell patients that there's at least a slight chance. I've talked to other women who've had painful pap smears as well.

Posted by: Marauder at April 19, 2010 5:58 PM


Did you complain to the doctor after? Or at all express concerns? because doctors can't change how they practice unless and until they get a response.

Posted by: Less at April 19, 2010 6:00 PM


I told her it hurt, but she just downplayed it and gave the impression that she didn't care. I'm never getting another pap smear again. It was traumatic to the point that I start crying if I think about it too long.

Posted by: Marauder at April 19, 2010 6:13 PM


Elisabeth,
I think you presented a good analogy.

* * * *

Less,
from a government website (women's health.gov):

The possible side effects of IUD's:
Cramps
Bleeding between periods
Pelvic inflammatory disease
Infertility
Tear or hole in the uterus


Intrauterine Devices or IUDs
An IUD is a small device shaped like a “T” that goes in your uterus. There are two types:

Copper IUD — The copper IUD goes by the brand name ParaGard. It releases a small amount of copper into the uterus, which prevents the sperm from reaching and fertilizing the egg. If fertilization does occur, the IUD keeps the fertilized egg from implanting in the lining of the uterus. A doctor needs to put in your copper IUD. It can stay in your uterus for 5 to 10 years.

Hormonal IUD — The hormonal IUD goes by the brand name Mirena. It is sometimes called an intrauterine system, or IUS. It releases progestin into the uterus, which keeps the ovaries from releasing an egg and causes the cervical mucus to thicken so sperm can’t reach the egg. It also affects the ability of a fertilized egg to successfully implant in the uterus. A doctor needs to put in a hormonal IUD. It can stay in your uterus for up to 5 years.

Posted by: Janet at April 19, 2010 6:16 PM


Less,

I should also mention that pregnancy starts prior to implantation, so if implantation is impaired and one is using an IUD as contraception, the resulting intentionally-terminated pregnancy is an ABORTION.

Posted by: Janet at April 19, 2010 6:21 PM


happy birthday to Madison! Today my newest niece Sarah, is 1 week old (1 week POST birth that is ;) )


That doctor sounds creepy. Sounds like the type who would LOVE to sterilize anyone who has **more** than 2.1 children.......

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at April 19, 2010 6:25 PM


Marauder, you understand the importance of Pap smears, right? By all means, find a pro-life doctor; some doctors, in cases such as yours, are happy to put the patient under general anesthesia or give a mild muscle relaxant, but please please take care of yourself.

Janet, I’m aware of that; I’ve never denied that it occurred. As to the side affects, cramps are fairly common; bleeding between periods happen primarily for users of the hormonal IUD. PID happens when the woman has an STD; infertility is usually the same. IUDs can perforate the uterus, but it’s very, very rare.

As I said, Janet, an abortion is the removal of a fetus. At that point, the egg has become a blastocyst, which literally is a clump of cells. Call it pregnancy if you want, but only a minority of blastocysts actually implant.

Posted by: Less at April 19, 2010 6:34 PM


The thing is, I'm not at risk for getting HPV at all, so as far as I can tell, getting a pap smear would be pretty much pointless for me.

Posted by: Marauder at April 19, 2010 6:44 PM


HPV isn't the only cause of cervical cancer; it can spontaneously arise as well. Abnormal cells can just kind of occur; my aunt had to have part of her cervix removed because of it.

Posted by: Less at April 19, 2010 6:48 PM


Okay, then I guess I could get cervical cancer - but I could get ANY type of cancer, and I'm not getting regularly screened for those. I'd probably consent to another pap smear if I noticed some kind of gynocological problem, but I'm not going to have someone poke at my cervix every year on the off-chance that out of all the possible cancers I could get, maybe I'm getting cervical cancer.

Posted by: Marauder at April 19, 2010 7:11 PM


my family has a high history of cervical cancer, so I have to get one every six months. I highly recommend you "shop around" for doctors. Maybe you have friends who can recommend one who made it less painful? I have to get colposcopies alot, and after 3 doctors I finally found one who would numb my cervix first, when the other 2 told me that it wasnt even possible!

Posted by: Sara at April 19, 2010 7:20 PM


Sara is right. There are lots of options, from anti-anxiety drugs to numbing of the cervix. It's your health, and your choice, but please do consider shopping around.

Posted by: Less at April 19, 2010 7:27 PM


I would say that the fact that the pap smear was painful goes hand in hand with the doctor's attitude about the pap smear being painful... you had a crappy doc who probably gets a kick out of causing pain (yes, they exist). I knew one who insisted on doing colposcopies without any numbing at all. Guy was a jerk and you could see in his eyes how he got off on causing pain (it was in my nursing school days).

A better doctor should be able to do it without causing much discomfort. They aren't pleasant, but shouldn't be painful.

Posted by: Elisabeth at April 19, 2010 7:36 PM


Maruader, the good news is that you don't have to have one every year as long as you're in a monogomous relationship. Now it's every 3 years. Still not fun, but at least less invasive.

Posted by: Lauren at April 19, 2010 7:52 PM


Elisabeth, some responsibility is also on the patient--if you tense up or twitch or anything along those lines, it hurts more. Not that I'm blaming M., as the doctor should have explained that as well; without that explanation, you aren't going to know it, and of course you'll tense up.

Also, Lauren is right: so long as you've never had history of abnormal cells, are in a monogamous relationship, etc, you only need one every three years. It helps to keep costs down as well, so that's good.

Posted by: less at April 19, 2010 8:27 PM


I was relaxed and everything - it just didn't seem to do any good in this case.

Posted by: Marauder at April 19, 2010 9:51 PM


Regarding the IUD - about 20-30 years ago they took them all off the market - due to infections, uterine perforations and huge problems for women.

I was totally surprised they brought them back.

Also - the hormonal IUD also has the added abortifiacent properties of changing the uterine lining so the baby can not implant in the uterine lining. All hormonal agents use that as one way to stop a pregnancy - this time after it exists (abortion).

I don't see this as any progress for women. It's a total step backwards, even if one discounts the moral and theological problems...

Posted by: joyfromillinois at April 19, 2010 10:08 PM


Joy, I've not had any complaints about my IUD. The ones now on the market are far different than the ones that caused perforations--the pervious ones were a different shape, and were likely to get 'caught' in the uterine lining. That is far, far more rare now.

Could you expound upon why you feel as though it's a step backward?

Posted by: Less at April 19, 2010 10:25 PM


having a foreign object in the uterus is not a good thing - especially when there are natural alternatives for spacing children, etc.

Again - it's women risking their health and fertility for some reason that puts them in a risky position on lots of accounts.

I'm happy you are not having any issues - but I hope you would consider removing it and dealing with a healthier alternative.

It's not the best for the health of the woman. Convenient, maybe. Healthy - well...

Posted by: joyfromillinois at April 19, 2010 10:34 PM


Less,
If you don't won't any more children why not get your tubes tied. That's drama too but I think the risks would be lessened. The IUD is foreign to your body so your body experiences added stress. This might not be a problem for you but how has your blood pressure been since you've had the IUD?
Of course non of this is my business but I enjoy chatting.

Posted by: myrtle miller at April 19, 2010 10:43 PM


Joy, I don't react well to hormonal pills, and I dislike condoms. Additionally, the IUD is the best possible form of non-permanent birth control.

I don't want to have children at all, so it isn't a matter of spacing children. And again, the IUDs currently on the market are far, far safer than those previously widely available.

Posted by: Less at April 19, 2010 10:44 PM


That's right no justice no peace that's what I was reflecting on earlier how pro-abortion people always appeal to the church based on the love of Christ. So why can't they see that it's because of his love that the real church fights the pro-abortion movement. Have you ever felt in your spirit that if the Body Of Christ ever really rose up in this country that a lot of the killing would stop. I don't think the church really understands the prayer of agreement.

Posted by: myrtle miller at April 19, 2010 10:56 PM


Myrtle Miller, I've not had children. However, based on my age and my marital status, no doctors will do it. It's not currently a possibility. Blood pressure hasn't changed--there's really been no side affects at all. I've really enjoyed it.

Posted by: Less at April 19, 2010 11:05 PM


Dear Pro-Lifer,

This scandal needs your urgent attention.

You see, the University of Detroit Mercy – a Catholic institution – has web site links to a pro-abortion group called the National Organization for Women (NOW). It also has a vocal pro-abortion nun on its Board of Trustees, Sister Margaret Farley.

Sign your protest now

Further investigation shows that Dr. Jane Schaberg, Professor of Religious Studies at the same university is a member of NOW and the dissident group Catholics for Free Choice.

But it gets worse.

Referred to as a "feminist biblical scholar," Prof. Schaberg authored a blasphemous book, first published in 1987, titled: The Illegitimacy of Jesus. The offensive work argues that Jesus was not conceived by the Holy Spirit, but most likely the offspring of a r a p e.

For example, on page 95, the book states: “…Mary, in the tradition Luke inherited, experienced a disaster worse than barrenness: sexual violation.”

Sign your protest now

Your peaceful message will go directly to Fr. Gerard L. Stockhausen, S.J., the president of the University of Detroit Mercy, urging him to correct the scandal.

TFP Student Action has never worked so hard. But there is only so much we can do. We urgently need your help, and we need it right now – – immediately.

Will you help me ramp up this protest?

Your friend,

John Ritchie
Tradition Family Property
Student Action, Director

http://www.tfpstudentaction.net/campaigns/index.php?option=com_chronocontact&chronoformname=protest_1007&Itemid=168

Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at April 20, 2010 9:57 AM


It is heresy for a hospital named Christ hospital to perform abortions. They should be forced to remove the cross on the side of their building.

Posted by: truthseeker at April 20, 2010 9:59 AM


"how does this killer receive communion, creep"

How DO YOU receive Communion... SINNER? Give me a break...

Talk pro-life.. You all forget you are sinners as well..and talk so self righteous. Once that begins, you ruin your stance and turn people of to the cause...

Shame on you!

Posted by: bazali at April 20, 2010 10:41 AM


Pray for Ambrose!!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at April 20, 2010 10:56 AM


bazali,
What an interesting comment! I had a good chuckle. Calling all of us sinners, which includes you.

Nothing ruins our stance on the sanctity of life from conception to natural death by speaking our minds and having our opinions and deeply held convictions.

If we have turned you off you were hardly here to learn anything about the right to life anyway. You just wanted to spout something self righteous I see, like "shame on you!!"

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at April 20, 2010 11:09 AM


Bazali, please remember that there is a reason to question whether an abortionist should choose to accept communion. If he continues to engage in the act, then he has not repented of it. There are clear instructions in scripture concerning this:

First, in a more general sense, from Matthew 5:23-24 .. "Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift." One could say that any act of piety offered by one who is in the profession of committing such an offense against his brethren (as the pre-born human truly is) is being told to make that right, be reconciled (which would mean no more abortions and repentance for having committed them) before attempting to appear right before God.

And in a more direct manner, 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 discusses what happens when someone who refuses to repent of sin partakes of communion: "Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."

Posted by: Elisabeth at April 20, 2010 12:31 PM


Jill stated that "Ambrose was Catholic". That's all.

We can't tell from Jill's article if Ambrose is receiving the Eucharist currently. Are we being charitable making an assumption that he is?

Posted by: Janet at April 20, 2010 1:08 PM


..how can this killer go and receive communion, what a creep.
Posted by: Jasper at April 19, 2010 8:09 AM

I believe bazali took offense to a comment by Jasper. A direct question from bazali to Jasper might be just the thing to get a conversation going.

Like, "Why would you say that, Jasper?"

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at April 20, 2010 1:26 PM



Post a comment:




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Please enter the letter "c" in the field below: