Pro-life blog buzz 10-8-13
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.
- Abstinence Clearinghouse reports that Japan is rescinding its recommendation for the Gardasil vaccine after a reported 2,000 adverse reactions, some quite serious. A report notes that the vaccine has caused adverse reactions in the United States as well, but the Obama administration “[continues] to [recommend] Gardasil, [and] spends large sums of taxpayer dollars promoting it, [keeping] details involving its dangers secret….”
- Down on the Pharm shares an undercover video showing how easy sex-selection abortion is in the UK. The Crown Prosecution Service has no plans to prosecute these abortionists who were breaking the law:
- Judie Brown of American Life League has a mind-boggling post on our “morally fractured society.” She outlines the many ways that reproductive technology has assaulted human dignity:
One need only read the headlines about genetically manipulated human beings to understand the real tragedy as well as the challenge. The Men Having Babies website, for example, exists because of the standard among homosexuals that there is nothing wrong with two men who are attracted to each other engaging the services of a surrogate mother to carry their child!In another example, transgender pregnancy is defined as the “last frontier” in assisted reproductive technology. Intrauterine insemination has made it possible for a transgender woman born with a male body and her bisexual lover to have a baby.
Charlotte Allen writes about the surrogacy business — a direct result of in vitro fertilization’s acceptance. Allen reports from the perspective that surrogate motherhood is acceptable in our culture. She apparently does not view the practice as morally fractured.
The three-parent embryo is another good example of an experiment with no concern about the potential risks. Actually, the only reason for such research is to prove that science can rid the world of defects in preborn children. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration will hold public hearings on this practice. While we have not heard about this in the media, we also will not hear about the tragic risks associated with it.
There are so many examples of these reproductive technology horrors that one could write a book about them. But the overriding problem is the public’s acceptance of the manipulation of the human being who is treated as nothing more than a science experiment.
- Americans United for Life filed an amicus brief with the North Dakota Supreme Court “on behalf of 49 state legislators in favor of a law that would protect women’s health by regulating sometimes dangerous life-ending drugs.”
- Clinic Quotes gives another example of how the abortion industry opposes informed consent. NARAL calls a Michigan ultrasound law “emotionally manipulative,” even opposing diagnostic ultrasounds for obvious safety reasons (ectopic pregnancy), stating that it is a financial burden to women. They also objected to referring women to places where they could get free ultrasounds, as these places may discourage abortion. Bottom line: the abortion industry is opposed to women’s informed choice and safety.
- Live Action News reminds us that Wednesday, October 9 is National Cupcake for Life Day – a truly sweet way to share the message of life. Happy baking!
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.
Some vaccinations do not have the necessary number of trials before CDC allows them to be marketed. Gardasil was developed to quickly and tested on a limited number of individuals. It does not work on many HPV cases and has too many side-effects too harmful to dismiss.
As always the pharmaceutical lobby prevailed at CDC (probably by bribing someone high up).
“In another example, transgender pregnancy is defined as the “last frontier” in assisted reproductive technology. Intrauterine insemination has made it possible for a transgender woman born with a male body and her bisexual lover to have a baby.”
In spite of the best efforts of a skilled writer using all the power of the English language — there’s just no way to make a sensible paragraph out of this situation.
Looks like attitudes concerning abortion are changing:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/abortion/43_favor_waiting_period_before_abortion_43_oppose
I take issue with only 1000 individuals in this sample. According to the most recent census, adults 18 and over comprise about 75 percent of our population, so this sample does not even cover 1 percent of the total eligible to vote. The potential voting block in the US is how many then? This number does not represent the attitudes across the board at all given how small it is in comparison. The percentages cited, thus, mean absolutely nothing.
Don’t you just hate twisted stats “merit?”
There’s nothing wrong with the sample size, it’s about standard for opinion polls (which are usually reasonably accurate). The issue is that Rasmussen surveys “likely” voters rather than eligible voters (ie a random sample of the entire adult population). Gallup does the latter, and its results consistently show more pro-life attitudes than Rasmussen’s. Two different sampling pools (the former of which presumably varies from year to year) means two different results.
Thomas R., compare February 2011 to present. 56% to 43%. If both are the same type samples, it’s valid.
At any rate, I’ll remember your post if YOU ever cite polls again.
Who says that the pool of “likely voters” stays the same from year to year?
Gallup it is for me, thanks Navi for your wisdom.