Click all images to enlarge…

The backstory, from an hlntv.com, article entitled, “Chicago ads stir outrage,” indicates that, among others, the transgender community that is offended:

Chicago officials have birthed a controversy with a new campaign that critics say unfairly targets the city’s young boys.

The billboard series titled “Unexpected” shows teenage males with their bellies protruding as if they’re pregnant. A similar campaign ran in Milwaukee using  the provocative images and now Chicago has rolled them out.

The campaign’s message is that girls aren’t the only ones that bear responsibility for the city’s pregnancy rate, which has decreased 33% over the past decade, according to the city’s Department of Public Health, but still remains higher than the national average….

“The response has been overwhelmingly positive,” Brian Richardson, spokesman for the Chicago Department of Health, said. “We’ve seen huge increases to our Facebook and Twitter accounts and huge media coverage, which is good because the entire goal was to raise awareness about a very important issue.”…

“Can we please create teen pregnancy awareness campaigns that do not shame transgender people who become/are pregnant?” posted Jessi E on the department’s Facebook page. “Very disappointed in the Chicago Department of Public Health for doing this.”

On Fox News Chicago’s Facebook page, Sue T said: “Horrible message and image. Not a funny life event. Ridiculous. And, the life changing possibility of becoming pregnant once teens become sexually active is NOT about the temporary inconvenience of a round belly – it IS about bringing a life into this world that requires money, love, time, energy and sacrifice. Put THAT into a visual billboard, not an impossible image that won’t build empathy. OMGOSH-who came up with this????”

Your thoughts?

[HT: Manuel C.]

It’s already happening. In less than a week, two cases involving children in need of lung transplants have gone to court challenging government policy.

This leads to the larger question: Should the government be intervening in this sort of healthcare policy to begin with? Be sure to vote in the poll at the bottom of this post.

The backstory, from Politico, June 4:

A federal judge in Philadelphia has granted a temporary restraining order in the second case involving children needing lung transplants in as many days, raising questions among ethicists about political pressure, emotional media coverage and case-by-case decision making about allocating scarce organs.

The family of 11-year-old Javier Acostafiled suit on Thursday against Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, seeking broader eligibility for a potentially lifesaving lung transplant for the boy. The family of Sarah Murnaghan [pictured above], 10, had gone to court a day earlier.

Both families challenged the current national transplant policy, which puts children younger than 12 first in line for organs from a child, even though pediatric lung donors are even rarer than adult donors. Both families wanted the age limitation lifted, so they could be eligible for organs from adult donors, too.

In both cases, U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson ordered Sebelius to put the children on the adult waiting list. The children, who have cystic fibrosis and are at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, are now on both the adult and pediatric waiting lists….

The lung transplantation policy has come under fire from some members of Congress, too, who had pressed Sebelius to intervene. Some conservative blogs said she was acting like a “death panel”….

But experts in the transplantation community are worried that the cases could send a troubling message. Namely, if you’ve got a problem with a transplant waiting list policy, take your case to your local television station and sue the government.

And while you’re at it, recruit your congressional delegation to the cause, medical establishment be damned. Then you may move up the list….

This particular policy was implemented in 2005 after five years of deliberation over how to replace the first-come, first-served standard. That had been the norm to that date and paid no heed to medical urgency.

Commenter Jim on Dustin Siggins’ Facebook page noted:

On the one hand, Sebelius did the right thing by staying out of it (IMO). On the other, why does the government mandate age restrictions on these types of things? They should stay out of it, altogether.

If the girl was on the transplant list and went through the same screening as everyone else, she should qualify for whatever her doctors believe is best. Government involvement prohibits the doctors from doing their job and changes the medical market to look at society as a whole rather than as numerous individuals.

In this case, mob rule wins… everyone better just hope and pray that the girl survives or Sebelius and the Federal government will look like geniuses. And yes, this sets a terrible precedent that if you can sway a politician, you have a better chance than those already in line.

Your thoughts?

[Photo via Philly.com]

As Democrats consider whether to use the so-called nuclear option to rewrite the Senate’s filibuster rules, one issue in particular has some liberals worried: abortion.

Changing the rules to make it easier to confirm President Barack Obama’s executive branch or judicial appointments may help the White House in the short term…. But privately, that base and abortion rights supporters are concerned how a future GOP president and Senate could take advantage of the new setup.

One Democratic aide described abortion rights groups as “wary of using the nuclear option to lower the threshold to 50 votes for judges because they’re afraid of what it could mean for women’s health,” although no group would go on the record, citing sensitive congressional negotiations. And several Democratic senators agreed the future of abortion rights is one of the top concerns for the party in the fight over rules….

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has threatened to use the nuclear option to speed things up. Simply put, the Senate would vote by a simple majority to prohibit filibusters on certain types of nominations – bringing the threshold to 50 votes rather than the 60 needed to break a filibuster.

~ Politico, June 6

[Photo from classic movie, Mr. Smith goes to Washington, where Jimmy Stewart plays a new ideological senator who filibusters for 24 hours straight to spotlight his cause]

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.

• Carla Stream, our lead moderator at JillStanek.com, has written an article for Pro-Life Action News on the importance of sidewalk counseling and prayer at abortion facilities. The Third Annual National Sidewalk Counseling Symposium will be in Minneapolis from July 25-27.
• Stand True shares the thoughts of four first-time sidewalk counselors. One sums up her thoughts:
  

  We’re talking about lives on the line here, a matter of life and death. What will you do today to make sure these little ones live to enjoy tomorrow?

• Suzy B highlights a pro-life picket which took place today at the Irish Embassy in D.C.. The goal was to voice opposition to the attempt to legalize abortion in Ireland through the “guise of protecting pregnant women who are considering suicide”:
  

  Thanks to its pro-life laws, Ireland has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world—it is one of the safest countries for a woman to give birth. Additionally, the number of Irish women who reject abortion and carry their babies to term is remarkably high.

• Wesley J. Smith shares news of a child who, once thought to be in a persistent vegetative state, has been successfully treated with umbilical cord stem cells:
  

  A child with cerebral palsy who suffered a cardiac arrest and became – they thought – permanently unconscious, appears to have been successfully treated with his own stored umbilical cord blood stem cells….This heartening story raises several issues, among which are: First, ethical stem cell research offers tremendous hope. Second, unconscious child patients are sometimes dehydrated to death based on the belief they can never recover.

• Secular Pro-Life features an article by Kelsey Hazzard and William Saunders, which shows that while the media attempts to portray an extreme pro-choice view as mainstream, it isn’t:
  

  The reality is that abortion advocacy groups only represent the tiny sliver of women and men who want abortion to be legal for any reason and through all nine months of pregnancy. Most American women reject that extreme view.According to a May 2013 Gallup poll, 57% of women say that abortion should be illegal in all (20%) or all but a few (37%) circumstances. This is very close to men’s views, within the margin of error.

• ProWomanProLife discusses the media’s apparent bias in labeling children with Down syndrome as “Down syndrome children,” as if that is the only thing you need to know about them.
• Right to Life of Michigan features a video of the equipment in the Gosnell House of Horrors, released by the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office:

View more videos at: http://nbcphiladelphia.com.

[Photo via LifeNews]

by LauraLoo

CelebTV reports on actor Brad Pitt’s recent Esquire Magazine interview in which he “opens up about loving the life he’s living” with actress fiancée Angelina Jolie and their six children:

I always thought that if I wanted to do a family, I wanted to do it big…. There’s constant chatter in our house, whether it’s giggling or screaming or crying or banging.  I love it….
I just haven’t known life to be any happier….

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cyurkWgKnw[/youtube]

Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.

[HT:  Daily Mail and People]

Joining the BusNuns this time is ol’ Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) who has a perfect pro-abortion record. She is rated 100% by NARAL. What a distinction!

These Nuns keep some odd company, don’t they?

~ Father John Zuhlsdorf, noticing the Nuns on the Bus Tour sponsored by NETWORK Catholic Social Justice Lobby, which had as its speaker pro-abortion congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (pictured), What Does the Prayer Really Say?, May 31

In April, Hans posted video of a woman at Ohio State University knocking down signs that had been erected by Created Equal showing the atrocity of abortion.

The vandal was identified as OSU student Calysta Santacroce, and Created Equal filed charges.

On May 7 criminal charges were lowered to “disorderly conduct” on the condition that Santacroce plead guilty and pay restitution of $126 to Created Equal, which she paid in cash that day.

When the judge asked Santacroce to explain herself, she said it had been a bad day, and she  did something she knows she shouldn’t have. “He [CE staff member] provoked me,” Santacroce claimed.

When the judge asked how so, Santacroce responded, “He asked me, ‘What do you think of my signs?’”

Santacroce was fined $50, in addition to the restitution.

Here again is that video. Warning: Profanity…

[youtube]http://youtu.be/B7Eap1smsy8[/youtube]

[Top graphic via We can end abortion on Facebook]

by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat

• In First Things, Clarke Forsythe discusses how the Supreme Court helped create abortionists like Kermit Gosnell:
  

  Because the Justices foolishly believed that abortion had few risks, and that abortion providers should have complete discretion to decide how to perform abortions in the first trimester, the Justices said that state and local officials could not regulate them in the first trimester. The Justices prohibited state health and safety regulations for abortion clinics in the first trimester of pregnancy when 90 percent of abortions are performed.

• At National Review, Michael J. New has a piece discussing the predicted “post-Roe abortion decline” and a piece on Gallup’s recent poll on morality, which held some good news for pro-lifers:
  

  Since 2001, Gallup polls have shown that opinions toward the morality of abortion have remained fairly constant. However, the percentage of Americans willing to identify themselves as “pro-life” has increased. Six of the last nine Gallup polls taken since 2009 have shown that Americans are more likely to describe themselves as “pro-life” rather than “pro-choice.”

• The Washington Post and the San Francisco Chronicle have the AP article covering the closure of 4 abortion clinics in Maryland owned by abortionist Stephen Brigham (pictured left), and the license suspension of three abortionists. The AP article features quotes from Vicki Saporta of the National Abortion Federation and the attorney of the abortion clinics, but no quotes from a pro-lifer:
  

  Four affiliated abortion clinics in Maryland have been shut down and three doctors have had their licenses suspended after a patient died at one clinic and regulators found lax procedures at all four, according to documents filed online by two regulatory agencies.

  The clinics in Baltimore, Cheverly, Frederick and Silver Spring were initially shut down in March. They were later allowed to reopen, but they were shut down again in early May after state regulators received a complaint about a patient who was given a drug used to induce abortions without a doctor present, according to documents posted online by the state Office of Health Care Quality, which regulates the clinics and ordered them to close.

  I’m still waiting for an abortion advocate like Amanda Marcotte or Jill Filipovic to blame the problems at these clinics on pro-life laws.

• Abortion advocate Jessica Valenti (pictured right) has an intentionally deceptive piece in The Nation in which she describes abortions pre-Roe. She writes:
  

  This isn’t even the most dangerous thing that anti-choice organizations go out of their way not to acknowledge. The Pro-Life Action League, for example, insists that before Roe, “there were not many illegal abortions, or illegal abortions were relatively safe.” The truth? According to the Guttmacher Institute, abortion was listed as the cause of death for almost 2,700 women in 1930 — 18 percent of maternal deaths. In 1965, abortion accounted for 17 percent of deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth — and those were just the reported cases.

  Valenti’s information is taken (nearly word for word) from this Guttmacher Institute web page.

  Here’s the pertinent paragraph from the Guttmacher Institute (note the highlighted portions which Valenti conveniently leaves out):
  

  One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll. In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher.

  Why does Valenti leave out the specific numbers for the deaths in 1950 and 1965 but keep in the much larger number for the 1930?

  Also note the year. Why is Valenti discussing 1965 when Roe wasn’t decided until 1973? Is it because there were 39 reported deaths from illegal abortion in 1972 (and also 24 reported deaths from legal abortion)?

  Now maybe Valenti thinks 39 deaths from illegal abortion vs. 24 deaths from legal abortions in 1972 proves that there were a lot of unsafe illegal abortions pre-Roe and that overturning Roe would lead to large number of illegal abortion deaths. But if she thinks that, she should actually make that argument instead of trying to deceive The Nation’s readers by leaving out facts which are inconvenient to her position and basically prove the argument of the pro-lifers she’s trying to vilify.

  For what it’s worth and to show how deceitful Valenti is, here’s the Pro-Life Action League web page where Valenti gets her quote from them. The web page (which isn’t linked to or cited in The Nation article) discusses the effect of penicillin in dropping the number of deaths from illegal abortion (just as the Guttmacher Institute does) and notes there were 39 deaths from illegal abortion in 1972.

[Photos via nrlc.org and cornellcollege.edu]