Sibby Online

Abortion is the weapon used in the actual war against women

Not just not the health risk of having an abortion, but this is the real danger of abortion to women:

Over the past three decades the world has come to witness an ominous and entirely new form of gender discrimination: sex-selective feticide, implemented through the practice of surgical abortion with the assistance of information gained through prenatal gender determination technology. All around the world, the victims of this new practice are overwhelmingly female — in fact, almost universally female. The practice has become so ruthlessly routine in many contemporary societies that it has impacted their very population structures, warping the balance between male and female births and consequently skewing the sex ratios for the rising generation toward a biologically unnatural excess of males. This still-growing international predilection for sex-selective abortion is by now evident in the demographic contours of dozens of countries around the globe — and it is sufficiently severe that it has come to alter the overall sex ratio at birth of the entire planet, resulting in millions upon millions of new “missing baby girls” each year. In terms of its sheer toll in human numbers, sex-selective abortion has assumed a scale tantamount to a global war against baby girls.

And perhaps this is why the New Age Theocrats are pushing for acceptance of homosexuality. What are all these excess boys going to do with their sex drive when the numbers of girls are unnaturally cut? And you say this could never happen in America?

To use fetal-tissue research and embryonic stem-cell research to create the illusion that something noble comes from abortion

Mark Crutcher:

I was recently enjoying that most cherished of modern-male traditions – channel surfing – when I stumbled across some obscure late-night talk show. The subject was medical research using fetal tissue and embryonic stem cells, and it wasn't long before the host and her guest began ragging on the pro-life community for its opposition to these things. Both were practically foaming at the mouth as they accused us of being hypocritical for calling ourselves "pro-life" while opposing technology that could save so many lives.

It was soon obvious that the goal of this show was to use fetal-tissue research and embryonic stem-cell research to create the illusion that something noble comes from abortion. In a transparent attempt to neutralize the biological reality that abortion intentionally takes the life of a living human being, the guest went so far as to propose that, even if life does begin at conception, we should all be willing to accept that the unborn are sacrificing their lives for the benefit of all mankind. Then, right on cue, the host nodded pensively, switched on her most fawn-like demeanor, looked into the camera and reminded the audience of the biblical reference about no man having greater love than the one who will lay down his life for others.

Now, I have been in this battle far too long to be shocked by anything that might be said by these kinds of people. Besides, I had already heard this particular drivel from another member of the pro-choice mob a few years earlier. This guy had spewed forth many of the same laughable positions taken by these two women, even going so far as to question why the pro-life movement was opposed to allowing babies to "assist" in making life better for people with serious health conditions. You heard right. In abortions, the babies are not victims, they are "assistants."

This idiotic statement, along with those made on this talk show, were further evidence that, if the ability to pervert rhetoric is art, the abortion lobby makes Rembrandt, da Vinci and Michelangelo look like a bunch of paint-by-number amateurs.

Let's set the record straight. Children who are being killed by abortion are not "laying down" their lives. Their lives are being taken from them through the application of lethal force. Using the corpses of aborted babies for medical research has nothing to do with allowing the unborn to sacrifice their lives to save others. It is about the born hoping that they can improve their own lives by butchering and then mining the unborn.

To fully appreciate the moral bankruptcy of this, imagine that a team of researchers has developed a drug that will cure cancer, heart disease and diabetes. This miracle drug is produced from a chemical found in the human body and can only be taken from living people under 55 years old. Additionally, clinical trials have proven that the drug is 100-percent effective and perfectly safe. It has also been determined that the amount needed to treat the entire country would require only about 500 donations per year. The only downside is that harvesting this chemical always kills the donor.

This broaches the question, given that millions of people could be saved, should we create a national lottery to randomly select 500 people a year who would be forcibly killed to make the drug?

Doe v. Bolton & Hitler

Jill Stanek has a history lesson:

Coincidentally, March 8 is International Women's Day, a special day for feminists in Poland. Each year to celebrate they organize demonstrations in major cities, including Poznan, to demand abortion without limits.

Adolf Hitler was so ahead of his time.

The sign is true, by the way. According to Wapedia (emphasis mine):

Until 1932, abortion was banned in Poland without exceptions. In that year a new Penal Code legalized abortion strictly when there were medical reasons and, for the first time in Europe, when the pregnancy resulted from a criminal act. Except during the German occupation during the Second World War, this law was in effect from 1932 to 1956.

Stunning documentary proves that decades-old eugenics movement is alive and well today: "Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America"

During the German occupation of Poland and other European countries, abortion was an important method Hitler used to exterminate non-Aryans. According to Wiki Answers (emphasis mine):

Did Hitler support abortion?

Yes. In fact, he was the first major Western leader to allow abortion even for reasons of the stress of the mother – thus making it legal in nearly every circumstance. His idea was to limit the growth of populations (lessen them, actually) in the Eastern territories where he wanted the German empire to expand – while increasing pregnancies and births to "Aryan" couples.

Under Hitler's guidance, the Berlin Chamber of Physicians loosened the Nazis' abortion policy in 1933 so as to use abortion as a tool to exterminate nondesirables. It determined "the health of the mother – considered from all angles – is the decisive factor" for abortions.

Flash forward to the U.S. Supreme Court's definition of the abortion health exception in its Jan. 22, 1973, Doe v. Bolton decision, which was, "all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age – relevant to the well-being of the patient."

Great minds think alike, or plagiarize sometimes.

Progressives hate the truth

Interesting, and note hte hypocrisy at the end:

College football star Tim Tebow is under attack by pro-abortion feminist groups after CBS agreed to air his 30-second Super Bowl ad celebrating life.

The commercial, paid for by Christian group Focus on the Family, tells the story of his mother, Pam Tebow, and her 1987 pregnancy with a theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." The ad is scheduled to be aired on the Feb. 7 broadcast of the Super Bowl at Dolphin Stadium in South Florida.

Pam became sick during her mission trip to the Philippines, contracting amoebic dysentery. She took strong antibiotics to rescue her from her coma. Pam's doctors warned that her baby would be stillborn or seriously ill. They suggested she abort the baby, but Pam refused. She gave birth to Tebow, who would later win the 2007 Heisman Trophy and help his Florida team to two national championships.

Jim Daly, president and CEO of Focus on the Family said the ad comes at a time when "families need to be inspired."

"Tim and Pam share our respect for life and our passion for helping families thrive," Daly said in a Focus on the Family announcement. "They live what we see every day – that the desire for family closeness is written on the hearts of every generation. Focus on the Family is about nurturing that desire and strengthening families by empowering them with the tools they need to live lives rooted in morals and values."

Daly said the money for the commercial, which could run between $2.5 and $2.8 million, came from "very generous and committed friends," and that no money from the Focus on the Family's general fund was used.

The Tebows said they agreed to appear in the commercial because the issue of life is one they feel very strongly about.

"Now that the ad has been shot, we're excited to tell people it's coming because the Tebows' story is such an important one for our culture to hear," he said. "You won't want to miss it."

Now Tebow's ad is under attack by several pro-abortion groups.

Jehmu Greene, president of Women's Media Center, demanded that CBS refuse to run the ad.

"An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year – an event designed to bring Americans together regardless of background, faith, ideology or political affiliation," she said in a statement today.

Several feminist groups are joining the effort to pressure CBS into pulling the commercial, including: the National Organization for Women, the Abortion Access Project, ACCESS/Women's Health Rights Coalition, , Advocates for Youth, AlterNet, By Any Media Necessary, California Council of Churches IMPACT, CAMI project, Choice USA, Civil Liberties and Public Policy, Equality Now, Feminist Majority Foundation and Feminist Press.

While the public has yet to see the ad or script., Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, declared that the ad is "not being respectful of other people's lives."

Planned Parenthood has a conflict of interest

That latest saga regarding South Dakota's abortion laws:

The Planned Parenthood corporation that hires physicians to do abortions at its Sioux Falls, S.D., branch lacks standing to argue against a state disclosure law, because it is the patients' rights that are impacted, not the rights of the company, a brief has argued.

A brief filed with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the corporation's interests actually conflict with those of the patient in many respects, because if a woman chooses not to have an abortion at Planned Parenthood, the company doesn't get paid.

The friend-of-the-court brief has been filed by Alliance Defense Fund in a case in which Planned Parenthood originally challenged a newly adopted South Dakota law requiring disclosure of accurate information to mothers-to-be seeking abortions.

The South Dakota law is far more strict than other regulatory provisions. It allows a woman who alleges she was not provided with the proper informed consent to sue for damages. It allows a prosecutor to pursue criminal charges against a physician who fails to provide the proper informed consent. It also allows the state to investigate and act against the license of any facility where the requirements for such informed consent are not met.

The 8th Circuit previously concluded the U.S. Supreme Court allows a state to "use its regulatory authority to require a physician to provide truthful, non-misleading information relevant to a patient's decision to have an abortion, even if that information might also encourage the patient to choose childbirth over abortion."

But when U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier ruled the state can require doctors to deliver to patients accurate information about abortion, she said they did not have to tell women about the increased risk of suicide linked to abortion or that there is a "relationship" between the mother and unborn child.

In a return to the appellate court, attorneys with the ADF now are arguing the court should reject Planned Parenthood's claims that it represents patients.

"A child's life is worth more than Planned Parenthood's bottom line," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Steven H. Aden. "The proponents of death work diligently to restrict the information mothers have about the life within them. Women need to know all the facts about abortion because it's not a one-time event; women have testified, and research shows, that aborting a child is an ongoing, painful struggle with guilt and doubt. It's incredible for the court to have determined that the law cannot acknowledge that a 'pregnant woman has an existing relationship with that unborn human being' because some human beings are somehow not 'persons.'"

The brief argues Planned Parenthood does not have the right to bring its case, because it actively works to keep the truth about abortion from mothers. The brief also asks the court to reverse a portion of a lower court ruling that struck down a part of the law that required doctors to inform women they are terminating a legally protected relationship with an "unborn human being."

Abortion causes breast cancer

Here is the latest:

In February 2003, Dr. Louise Brinton, the National Cancer Institute's chief of the Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, served as chairperson at an NCI workshop in Bethesda, Md., to assess whether abortion was implicated as a breast cancer risk.

In the opinion of "over 100 of the world's leading experts," said the subsequent NCI report, including Dr. Brinton, the answer was no.

One expert disallowed from participating was Dr. Joel Brind, a biology and endocrinology professor who had co-authored a meta-analysis demonstrating an abortion/breast cancer (ABC) link.

Brind protested that the outcome was predetermined by "experts" handpicked by Dr. Brinton who either were not really experts, were dependent on the NCI or other government agencies for grants, or were pro-abortion extremists, such as two who had previously provided paid "expert" court testimony on behalf of abortionists.

Studies concluding there was not an ABC link were included in the workshop analysis; studies concluding there was were not.

At the time, 29 out of 38 studies conducted worldwide over 40 years showed an increased ABC risk, but the NCI workshop nevertheless concluded it was "well established" that "induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk."

Brind went on to write a minority report NCI alludes to on its website without publishing or listing its author and did not even mention in its workshop summary report.

Life went on, except for post-abortive women inflicted with breast cancer anyway.

But six years later something happened. Dr. Brinton either flipped her lid, flipped ideologies, restudied the evidence and decided to recant, or couldn't sleep at night – and she began righting her wrong.

In April 2009, Brinton co-authored a research paper published in the prestigious journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, which concluded that the risk of a particularly deadly form of breast cancer that attacks women under 40 raises 40 percent if a woman has had an abortion.

The paper's subtitle listed Brinton's position at NCI.

Curiously, the paper included as corroboration two studies Brinton's 2003 NCI "experts" had rejected. More curiously, it turns out Brinton co-authored one of those two studies.

For nine months, that little bombshell of a disaster for pro-abortion ideology was published without the NCI acknowledging it or changing its stance.

Then this month, Brind spotted and wrote about Brinton's concession and NCI's hypocrisy.

Now that the mainstream media's interest has been slightly piqued, NCI and Brinton are on the hot seat.

Democrats put money above life

Jill Stanek expresses disappointment in Ben Nelson's corrupt betrayal:

Up to the end Nelson was working with all the right people – Democrats for Life, Nebraska Right to Life, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, pro-life Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak.

But in the end, Nelson betrayed them all.

I feel particularly bad for Kristen, who already had a tough row to hoe as defender of pro-life Democrat legislators. Nelson's defection coupled with Casey's really set Democrats for Life back.

More lies from the Progressive Movement

Another Planned Parenthood under-cover sting:

A team of activists whose undercover videos revealed Planned Parenthood employees advising patients to lie to a judge and ignoring apparent cases of statutory rape has launched a project to uncover lies told to the patients.

The new Rosa Acuna Project led by Lila Rose at Live Action.org  unveiled today its first undercover video revealing counselors and an abortionist in Wisconsin apparently misleading a potential patient.

The video, according to Live Action, reveals "clinic staff, including the abortion doctor, lying to two young women about fetal development":

In the video, two women ask an abortion business counselor if a pregnant woman's 10-week-old unborn child has a heartbeat. The counselor informs them it is "heart tones."

"Heartbeat is when the fetus is active in the uterus – can survive – which is about 17 or 18 weeks," she says.

However, Live Action said embryologists confirm that the heartbeat of an unborn child begins at about three weeks.

Planned Parenthood pushed abortions for profit

So much for Planned Parenthood's immoral sex education to lessen the need for abortion:

A  former director of a Texas Planned Parenthood branch who resigned after she watched an ultrasound-guided abortion told WND the clinic was pushing employees to strive for abortion quotas to boost profits.

"There are definitely client goals," former clinic director Abby Johnson said. "We'd have a goal every month for abortion clients and for family planning clients."

Johnson, 29, said the Bryan, Texas, Planned Parenthood clinic performed surgical abortions every other Saturday, but it began expanding access to abortion to increase earnings.

"One of the ways they were able to up the number of patients that they saw was they started doing the RU-486 chemical abortions all throughout the week," she said.

RU-486 chemical abortions kill the lining of the uterus, cutting off oxygen and nutrients, resulting in the death of an unborn baby. Johnson said the chemical abortion costs the same as an early first-trimester abortion: between $505 and $695 for each procedure.

She told WND the clinic was experiencing financial difficulties due to the economic downturn.

"Abortion is the most lucrative part of Planned Parenthood's operations," she said. "Even though they're two separate corporations, all of the money goes into one pot. With the family planning corporation really suffering, they depend on the abortion corporation to balance their budget, help get them out of the hole and help make income for the company."

She continued, "They really wanted to increase the number of abortions so that they could increase their income."

Now Planned Parenthood has retaliated against Johnson, filing a restraining order against her because the clinic fears she may leak confidential information.

Obama misleads on Obamacare's abortion funding

Looks like we are back to which meaning of is is:

In a conference call with his supporters Wednesday evening, President Obama accused critics of his health care "reform" of spreading falsehoods when they claim the plan would result in "government funding of abortions."

"You've heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion. Not true," he told at least 140,000 people. "These are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation – and that is that we look out for one another, that I am my brother's keeper and I am my sister's keeper. And on the wealthiest nation on earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call."

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, or NRLC, said Obama brazenly misrepresented the abortion-related component of the health care legislation.

Johnson noted that according to the Capps-Waxman amendment passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on July 30, H.R. 3200 explicitly authorizes the government plan to cover all elective abortions.

"Obama apparently seeks to hide behind a technical distinction between tax funds and government-collected premiums," Johnson said in a statement. "But these are merely two types of public funds, collected and spent by government agencies. The Obama-backed legislation makes it explicitly clear that no citizen would be allowed to enroll in the government plan unless he or she is willing to give the federal agency an extra amount calculated to cover the cost of all elective abortions – this would not be optional. The abortionists would bill the federal government and would be paid by the federal government. These are public funds, and this is government funding of abortion."

Johnson noted that when Obama was a presidential candidate, he specifically pledged to Planned Parenthood that his plan would cover abortions in 2007. An NRLC video of that promise follows:

While some news outlets claim Obama has "backed off" his pledge in a July 21 interview with Katie Couric, Johnson said, the president simply avoided directly addressing his goal and stated, "we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care."

"It is true that there is such a tradition – which Obama has always opposed, and which the Obama-backed bill would shatter," Johnson said.

The White House "reality check" website has not addressed the issue of abortion coverage in Obama's health plan.

Obama's Organizing for America website quotes a false factcheck.org statement that "In fact, none of the health care overhaul measures that have made it through the committee level in Congress say that abortion will be covered."

NRLC has released an 11-page detailed explanation of provisions in pending health bills that would impact abortion policy.