I lol'd

I have a number of serious posts waiting to be written but in the mean time, how about a pretty decent joke about Aunty Karen...

The teacher gave her fifth-grade class an assignment: get their parents to tell them a story with a moral at the end of it.

The next day the kids came back and one by one began to tell their stories.

Ashley said, "My father's a farmer, and we have a lot of egg-laying hens. One time we were taking our eggs to market in a basket on the front seat of the car when we hit a big bump in the road and all the eggs went flying and broke and made a mess."

"What's the moral of the story?" asked the teacher.

"Don't put all your eggs in one basket!"

"Very good," said the teacher.

Next little Sarah raised her hand and said, "Our family are farmers too. But we raise chickens for the meat market. We had a dozen eggs one time, but when they hatched we only got ten live chicks, and the moral to this story is, 'Don't count your chickens before they're hatched.'"

"That was a fine story, Sarah. Michael, do you have a story to share?"

"Yes, my daddy told me this story about my Aunt Karen. Aunt Karen was a flight engineer in the Gulf War and her plane was hit. She had to bail out over enemy territory, and all she had was a bottle of whiskey, a machine gun, and a machete. She drank the whiskey on the way down so it wouldn't break and then she landed right in the middle of a hundred enemy troops. She killed seventy of them with the machine gun until she ran out of bullets. Then she killed twenty more with the machete until the blade broke. Then she killed the last ten with her bare hands."

"Good heavens," said the horrified teacher, "what kind of moral did your daddy tell you from that horrible story?"

"Stay away from Aunt Karen when she's been drinking!"

Massachusetts Special Election Holds the US in the Balance

On Tuesday Bay Staters will decide on the new Massachusetts representative in the U.S. Senate, replacing the late Ted Kennedy in the strongly blue state. Republican candidate Scott Brown has pledged to be the 41st vote against the Health Care bill while Democrats candidate Martha Coakley has stated she will be the 60th vote for the Senate version of the bill. If the Democrats lose Massachusetts it won't just put the health care bill on shaky ground, but will serve as a clear indicator that the common people are unhappy with the current regime. A Republican victory will bode badly for the Democrats as they gear up for the mid-term elections in November this year. Libertarian Joseph Kennedy is running as a distant third, and while he may take some votes away from both of the major candidates, he poses no real threat. Let's look at the two main candidates...

Scott Brown (Republican)

SEIU members showing support for Republican Scott Brown

Scott Brown is the Republican candidate in the race for the Massachusetts seat in the U.S. Senate. While he is far preferable to his opponent Martha Coakley as you will read below, he is not quite an ideal representative. Massachusetts members of the 2.1 million strong SEIU union have been expressing their support for Brown while the head office of the union funded a $665,000 TV attack ad against the Republican.

Torture: The Democrats are at his throat for his assertion that waterboarding is not torture, and that he supports it as an advanced interrogation technique. However waterboarding is clearly a form of torture as Republican Presidential candidate John McCain has asserted.

Pro-life: Brown is a pro-life politician who has initiated and supported several incremental steps forward to improving the rights of pre-born children. While he has consistently voted for abortion to remain legal, he has got behind some strongly pro-life bills and pro-life groups have also got behind him. Brown's abortion voting record is available here.

Martha Coakley (Democrats)
Coakley is the current Attorney General of Massachusetts and has gone from being the obvious choice to underdog in the Massachusetts race due to a number of avoidable mistakes during the campaign as well as things she's done in the past which shine badly on her now. GOP strategist Jordan Gehrke reported in the National Review that Coakley said at a 12 January fundraiser, "If I don't win, 2010 is going to be hell for Democrats ... Every Democrat will have a competitive race..." and also that she said that health care reform is riding on the Massachusetts race and that her loss would be the beginning of a "disaster".

Partial-Birth Abortion: In 2007 she expressed her support for the repealing of the partial birth abortion ban. Partial birth abortion is the barbaric process whereby the abortionist kills the viable fetus when only its head remains inside the mother. When the bill to make partial-birth abortions permissible failed, Coakley stated that this was tragic, also complaining that those in the court hearing had been influenced by the realistic description of what a partial-birth abortion entails.

"The ramifications, long and short term, of this tragic decision are immense. Women have again been relegated to second-class citizens, after decades of efforts to foster equality."

With her strong feminist, pro-abortion stance, Coakley has won the support of pro-abortion groups such as the National Organization for Women (NOW), the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) and Emily's List (which donated $314,000).

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

As at 7pm Monday night in the States, respected polling company, Five Thirty Eight gives Martha Coakley just a 25 percent chance of prevailing on Tuesday. It appears that rather than rallying at this news, that Coakley's support is steadily dropping off. Here's hoping that Republicans, Independents, disillusioned Democrats and other swing-voters will be out in their droves on Tuesday, voting for a real change in the Obama agenda. Voting in the special election starts at 7am on Tuesday Jan. 19 (today), with polling booths closing at 8pm.

</Blogger>

Heading down to Waihola for a week to help out at a boy's camp run down there by Christian Youth Camps. Should be a great opportunity for all involved, and am looking forward to a week without a computer screen anywhere in sight. I helped out at the same camp two years ago and here's what happened. See y'all later.

Kia Kaha

Pro-Abortion Feminists Outraged at Optional Ultrasound

Utah House of Representatives Republican, Carl Wimmer

Andrew Jenkins, a writer at the Feminists for Choice Death blog and "a self-proclaimed queer feminist" is having kittens. He is upset by the introduction of a bill set to be debated in early 2010, into the Utah House of Representatives by Republican Representative Carl Wimmer. Wimmer is a strongly conservative politician with a mission to chip away at Roe v. Wade which he correctly states has legalised "no reason" abortion in the United States. In 2009 Wimmer sponsored two incrementally pro-life bills. The first, HB222 was entitled "The Unborn Child Pain Prevention Act" and requires that doctors who are going to commit an abortion on a child must inform the mother that the child may feel pain, and requires that the doctor offer an anesthetic to alleviate the pain for the foetus. The second bill Wimmer co-sponsored established in law that an unlawful abortion was the equivalent of a 2nd degree homicide. While being strongly pro-life, Wimmer justly supports permission of abortions in extreme cases only. Utah has a population of 2.7 million and, as a largely conservative state, lays claim to a relatively low total of 4,000 abortions being committed each year out of 3 abortion mills. Low perhaps, but still approximately 4,000 too many abortions and 3 too many abortion clinics. The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform states that only 1% of abortions occur because of rape or incest, 6% occur because of potential possible health problems while the vast majority, 93% are committed for social reasons - where it is claimed that an abortion will improve the future of the mother or remove an "inevitable future of pain and poverty" for the foetus.

The latest pro-life bill introduced by Wimmer would require that abortionists must provide an image of the fetus on an ultrasound along with an optional detailed description of what is on the screen. The Salt Lake Tribune explains the situation,

Current law says women planning abortions must be told they have the right to view an ultrasound. Wimmer's changes go further and say that if an ultrasound is performed, the images must be displayed so that the woman can see them, if she wants. And, if she desires, the person performing the ultrasound must provide a "detailed description" of what is on the screen, including the dimensions of the fetus, description of its heart and presence of other organs and external body parts.

Naturally pro-abortion feminists and those with a vested interest in the continuation of liberal abortion laws are fuming. Wimmer correctly summarises their motivation,

"They're in the abortion market to make money. The more ultrasounds they show, the fewer abortions they're going to be able to do."

Wimmer drafted the bill with the national anti-abortion organization, Americans United for Life. AUL states that by showing the mother an image of her pre-born child, a bond will be established which leads to the woman no longer feeling ambivalence towards the life growing within her. This phenomena is pretty straight-forward. Until a mother sees or touches her child - at any stage in his/her development, the level of responsiblity or love which she feels for the child will be significantly lower than when she does see and hold her child. However Andrew Jenkins of Feminsts for Death lashes out at Wimmer for his part in "making the already difficult decision to have an abortion even harder".

"Unfortunately for women in the state of Utah, Wimmer is pushing for more invasive restrictions that would dramatically challenge a women’s right to choice. Rep. Carl Wimmer’s bill would require that a doctor provide an image of the fetus on an ultrasound along with a detailed description of what is on the screen. Although this so-called attempt at establishing a “bond” between a mother and her fetus is still optional, the very idea of this legislation is cloaked in anti-choice language that views women as agentless and incapable of coming to their own conclusions about what is best for their bodies and their lives. Despite the fact that this bill remains seemingly optional for women seeking an abortion, it is most certainly a part of a larger anti-choice agenda to coerce women out of choosing abortion."

Jenkins is incorrect to state that doctors will be required to provide the image and a detailed description, in fact he contradicts himself in the next sentence when he acknowledges that these procedural changes will be optional with the woman determining what she does/does not wish to know about her pre-born child, or the procedure which will tear it to pieces, forcefully sucking it out of her body through a hose. He comments that, "Regardless of how difficult of a decision it may be, it remains a decision that each woman should have the autonomous right to make on her own." However, ironically - and this is typical of the pro-abortion lobby, he is absolutely opposed to women being given the option of a wider range of information being made available to them to allow them to make a better-informed choice.

New Abortion Law in Oklahoma Under Fire

The Oklahoma House of Representatives passed an amendment to the state's abortion law known as HB-1595 on 13 May 09. The law passed through the Oklahoma Senate on 15 May, and was scheduled to come into force on 1 November 09. Read the act here. The amendment served to establish several crucial changes to the abortion law. Firstly, prohibiting an abortion from being committed soley on account of the sex of the pre-born child. Secondly a form was set out in the Act (pages 8-17) with the requirement that abortionists fill the form out for each abortion committed, with the information being returned to the State Department of Health.

Ban of Sex-Selective Abortions
Declaring a ban on sex-selective abortions, Section 2. A. of the revised law states,

"No person shall knowingly or recklessly perform or attempt to perform an abortion with knowledge that the pregnant female is seeking the abortion solely on account of the sex of the unborn child..."

Jill Stanek commented in May that this was "the first sex-selection abortion ban to pass in the country". And the National Right to Life Committee was alluding to the gender-disbalance situation in China when it praised the law-change saying, "All over the world, millions of females are missing due to sex selection abortions". Of course the pro-abortion lobby hate this aspect of the abortion debate, because they claim that they are "pro-choice", and that abortion is all about "a woman's right to choose". They believe that the rights of the foetus are either non-existant, or so inferior to those of the mother that they are negligible. When confronted with the fact that abortion is sometimes used (legally) for the purpose of eugenics, they often don't know where to look. Feminists for Choice were all over the place,

"Now, i am just against sexism, whether in the womb or not, as anyone else, and whether you believe that gender is an appropriate reason to terminate a pregnancy or not, the real problem lies in the government stepping in and placing restrictions on the “right” reasons for a woman to seek an abortion."

Get that? They are opposed to sexism and yet they believe that mothers should have the right to be sexist when determining the fate of their pre-born child. However if abortion is simply about the rights of women to control their own bodies and the rights of the foetus are so insignificant as not to come into any meaningful consideration, then what the heck is the problem with sex-selective abortions? It will make your pro-abortion friend very uncomfortable and attempting to change the direction of the conversation. It is true that mothers will be able to keep quiet about their wish to abort their child on the grounds of its sex and instead give another legally acceptable reason for proceeding with an abortion. Nonetheless, this law-change is a positive step forward, as it enshrines in law the right of the pre-born child to not be killed for a reason based purely upon its sex.

Individual Abortion form (click here to view PDF)

Abortion Details Form & Report
The second major change to Oklahoma's abortion law is the requirement for women seeking an abortion to fill out a questionnaire. Two Oklahoma women, Wanda Jo Stapleton and Martha Hardwick in association with The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a legal challenge against the law on September 29, arguing that it violated the state’s single-subject rule which requires laws only address one topic at a time. The stated reason for opposing the law is just a convenient technicality. The real reason that the pro-abortion lobby are seeking for the overturn of the law is that it implements restrictions on abortion provision and greater transparency in terms of abortion statistics reporting. Pro-Choice of Oklahoma challenged the new law primarily complaining that the survey would compromise women's privacy, commenting,

"The reporting requirements of HB 1595 are so extensive that the reports could reveal the names of physicians and patients who perform or receive abortions in small towns..."

However this is extremely unlikely as the law comments on this scenario. It makes it clear that in situations where the information released could lead to identification of specific mothers, that the range of the information would be cut down to a level sufficient to remove this possibility in Section 5. E.,

"The State Department of Health will take care to ensure that none of the information included in its public reports could reasonably lead to the identification of any individual female..."

Feminists for Death Choice complain, "the website will cost upwards of $281,285 the first year and $256,285 each subsequent year This is an extravagent cost for a state that is already suffering a budget crisis." To put that expense in perspective, it is estimated that the legal costs for a death penalty case from indictment to execution are $1.2 million. The $250,000 expense to increase transparency in abortions committed that the pro-death lobby are waving about is less than a quarter of the expense of the US Govt. killing just one of its citizens. This is compared with the cost of creating and maintaining a data-set for the killing of aproximately 7,000 pre-born Oklahoma babies each year.

Law temporarily blocked
On 18 December 09 the Oklahoma County District Court temporarily blocked enforcement the new law until the case is heard on 19 February 2010. It had originally been scheduled to come into force on 1 November 09. This is a temporary victory for the pro-abortion lobby. If the law is thrown out on this technicality it will be able to be re-introduced following the correct protocol - which would mean that the four individual aspects covered in the bill would be split up into four separate bills and passed through the House in Oklahoma again. Of course this will all cost extra tax-payer's money, and I thought it was the well-meaning pro-abortion lobby who were so concerned about the "unlawful expenditure of public funds"...

Oklahoma is shining the light of freedom and justice, leading the way forward for the other 49 states to follow. Let's hope this pro-life change to their abortion law will be upheld, and just another step forward in the fight for the right to life of Oklahoma's most innocent and helpless citizens, it's pre-born children.

I lol'd

A couple months ago, I entered a contest and ended up winning a few acres of swamp land below the flood plane in Mississippi. Before I knew it, right after that I won a $250,000 house, so naturally I built it on my new land. Last week, I won enough money in the lottery to quit my job and move down there for good. And just last night, as sat on my new porch watching the rain and listening to the thunder, it all started to sink in.

You Know You're Doing Something Right When...

Keith Mason of Personhood USA

Congratulations to Personhood USA on becoming a nominee for the The National Abortion Rights Action League's 2009 Hall of Shame. In their description of the threat Personhood USA poses to the pro-abortion movement, NARAL write,

The group behind the anti-choice "personhood" measures, Personhood USA, exists solely to establish legal rights for fertilized eggs and trigger legal battles over abortion that could go all the way to the Supreme Court. Not only could the strategy outlaw abortion, but it could even threaten birth control, stem-cell research, and in-vitro fertilization. Working to outlaw abortion makes Personhood USA a strong candidate for Hall of Shame of the year.

Co-founder of Personhood USA, Keith Mason responded “We at Personhood USA are honored to be considered one of the top four threats to abortion in America”. Personhood USA is just one year old, but in this time has launched efforts in over 30 states, with petitions currently circulating in seven states. Keith continued,

The bottom line is that NARAL exists to promote the killing of innocent children. Even their use of the term ‘fertilized egg’ is a misnomer – scientifically, once a human egg is fertilized it is no longer an egg, but a new individual with his or her own DNA. It’s clear that to be on their ‘Hall of Shame’ list is not a bad thing.”

Well done Personhood USA, keep it up.

In Her Own Words

A New Zealand woman commented on a post I wrote recently about a recent NZ study which found that, "Women reporting adverse reactions were up to 80 per cent more likely than women not exposed to abortion to have mental health problems". Here is her comment:

You are absolutely right about the lack of informed consent. I had an abortion eight yrs ago and almost died from depression after it - I was suicidal for years yet was not informed of this possibility when I attended the 'counselling' to explore options - the only option explored in the half hour session was abortion. It was described as being 'very sad but a very simple and safe "procedure"' We were told we could get on with our lives afterwards. Life stopped after that day. My marriage limped along for years after and then we split. It is known that eighty percent of couples split afterwards yet there was no mention of this. There is no support afterwards, no grief counselling, no acknowledgement of the loss. It is barbaric, but who do you turn to after it is over? You are blamed for making the 'choice'. In my case I was coerced by the male partner as are most women who submit. If I had sought assistance, I would have been blamed for having prior mental health issues, which definitely wasn't the case - I was perfectly healthy, sane and rational before the event. I attended a Catholic retreat called Rachel's Vineyard some years later and received reconciliation with my God, but still find it hard to live with. Thankyou for speaking up about this and please continue to do so - women are being sold a lie and Family Planning clearly has a Government population control mandate - Margaret Sparrow should be hung, drawn and quartered for what she has done ... or better yet she should be forced to have an abortion seeing as she is such a vocal supporter of them for other people.

Did you know they don't give women seeking abortions scans while they are trying to make up their minds? Why? Because most women change their minds and continue the pregnancy when they see their child's heartbeat. Abortion is never a 'choice' - it is a terrible road taken in desperation and if it wasn't available people would have to cope as they did in days gone by. What we have now is a generation of men who think abortion is harmless and almost a rite of passage for women - they are spineless and don't take fair responsibility for the consequences of sex. The man's response to pregnancy is the number one determinant as to whether a woman will abort or not. If she perceives a lack of support she is likely to do the 'sensible' and 'supportive' thing by climbing on the table and submitting to having her child murdered in her womb. The repercussions are horrific - it is a soul wound and half of our women are walking around as zombies in society. Thirty percent of all abortions are to married women. Abortion is also known to contribute to child abuse for both parties - perhaps this might explain the horrific rates we have in Australasia.

How did you find that? ...but abortion is simply about women's reproductive rights, what's the big deal? Go watch TV and forget about what you've just read. Who cares?

Bloody Christmas

From the moment Jesus was born people hated Him and wanted to kill Him. The Romans had put in place a puppet king, King Herod of Judea who was jealous of his position and saw the birth of this baby as a threat. Later on, one of Jesus' followers named Matthew wrote down the events which we now have in the Bible, Matthew 2:13-16;

"An angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, "Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him. When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt."

Herod was unaware that Joseph, Mary and Jesus had escaped into Egypt and so initiated a campaign of infanticide against the baby boys in the region in the hope of killing Jesus.

"He sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under."

Jesus escaped this first attempt on His life, but the very reason He had come into the World was to be killed. His own people, the Jews despised Him, and as another one of Jesus' followers said, "He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him." At the age of 33 He was condemned to death by crucifixion, arguably the most painful, slow and humiliating punishment in the Roman Empire... 2000 years later we just have a picture of the nativity scene in our minds and revved up Christmas carols down at the shopping mall. Christmas is about getting together with the family, giving each other presents and eating too much. If this is all Christmas really is, then it was just a bloody abysmal failure. If Jesus was just a well-intentioned and good man who died on a cross, then Christianity is a false religion and Christmas is a non-event. As another of Jesus' followers - Paul said, "If Christ is not risen, your faith is futile". We can only say "Merry Christmas" if the angel was correct when he said to the shepherds out on the hillside,

"Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord."

What are these good tidings which made the shepherds joyful, and what does it mean that Christ was Saviour and Lord? The angel was speaking on behalf of God and was making reference to the prophecies hundreds of years ago, documented in the Old Testament of the Bible which looked ahead to God sending a Saviour who would save His people from their sins. The prophet Isaiah wrote approximately 700 years before Jesus' birth,

"For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of His government and peace
There will beno end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this."

This little baby Jesus was God's solution to our problem of sin. When God made the World, it was perfect, but when Adam and Eve sinned, the World was no longer perfect and people were separated from God by their sin. Because God is absolutely perfect and just, He cannot abide sin - therefore all those who sin must be punished. And the only fair punishment for sinning against an infinitely powerful and holy God is an infinite period of punishment - the Bible calls this Hell and tells us that it lasts forever.

However this is where Amazing Grace kicks in, because God is not only just, He is amazingly gracious and has provided a solution to our problem. We established above, a fair punishment for sinning against God, and now the question is, what is a fair price to pay for us to escape this punishment? Every other religion and faith in the World says that good works can make us right with God, however the Bible teaches that our good works are as filthy rags to God. Sure, it pleases Him when we do good things for the right reason, but good deeds don't serve to pay the price for the sins we've committed. The Bible teaches that God is one God, but in three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father sent the Son to Earth, miraculously causing Him to be conceived in the womb of a girl called Mary, who had never slept with a man. Since Jesus was the God-man who was immaculately conceived, and never sinned throughout His life, He was acceptable to God as the perfect sacrifice which had the potential to pay for the sins of all the people who ever lived - because again, being God he was infinitely perfect and therefore perfectly suited to be a substitute for us. This isn't all though. In order to truly defeat death, Jesus would need to not only be killed and receive the punishment we deserved, but He must also overcome death and rise from the dead. Jesus did this on a Sunday about 2000 years ago, and we remember it as the Resurrection. If Jesus had not been raised from the dead, I would have just as much faith in Christianity as I do in George Lucas's "The Force".

I think the most common misconception about Christianity is that you have to be a good person to be a Christian, however this couldn't be further from the truth. P.O.D. got it right when they sang, "I'm not perfect, just forgiven, And I might just push back the next time you shove..." Being a Christian isn't about being a good person, instead it's about trusting in Jesus' death as payment for your sins to make you right with God, and then being thankful to God for that, and the outworking is our good works.

Here's what I wrote on the first day of 2009, kind of on a similar subject but in particular focusing on the pointlessness of a life in denial of God. Brendan and Scrubone have also written Christmas posts worth reading.

The Spirit of Christmas

hat-tip: Jill Stanek

Bunny Wants Your Money

A few months back I saw the SAFE poster with the little tear-off tabs, asking for volunteers to help with the annual appeal. SAFE is an organisation which seeks to be a voice for animals in New Zealand. As they can't speak for themselves, it is only right that someone should. Being strongly opposed to animal abuse myself (after watching a video here), I tore off one of the little tear-off tabs and got in touch with the team at SAFE to let them know I was keen to help out.

Arrived at the SAFE headquarters at 10am where they kitted me out with a bunny suit, and where I was loathe to part with my cellphone and wallet, as there are no pockets on a bunny suit. Bunnies as you may know, are not marsupial. Together with a female leopard, I walked from the SAFE office to our possie on what is basically the busiest intersection in Christchurch - returning passer-bys' incredulous stares or giggles with looks of placid contentment and self-confirmation. Of course the floppy ears weren't helping much, one was standing up nicely but the other one kept falling over, resulting in the appearance of a rather large, dejected-looking bunny.

The cow across the intersection from me who was suffering from an identity crisis informed me of the time when I asked him (12:45pm), and also that he didn't know exactly which animal he was. His sister, a canary sympathised with me as I related to her the incident where an extroverted, middle-aged female had grasped my tail and commented, "aw, what a cute little tail the bunny has". I did not share her sentiments, and looked at her blankly while she laughed awkwardly with her friend.

A photo-blogger stopped and asked for a photo, and in return I asked her to email me it. There's another one on her blog...

Standing within view of McDonalds, KFC and Burger King, and having skipped breakfast, after 3 hours I caved in, and together with the canary and the cow-who-didn't-know-what-he-was, I walked back to the office for debriefing. After getting back into civvies and a glass of something fairly warm and organic, it was all about making a bee-line for Burger King. Anyway, in all seriousness, animal abuse is a terrible blight on our society, and we have a duty to speak out against it. It is impossible for you to care about it unless you know what it is, so I encourage you to look into it yourself.

I lol'd

Three men were walking through the jungle when they were captured by cannibals. The cannibals thought they would be fair and give the men each one chance to be let free. They were released into the jungle to pick three of one type of fruit and come back to see the chief. After this the chief would tell them what to do.

The first man got three apples. The chief said, "Okay, you must swallow all three of these apples without gagging or chewing." The man got the first one in his throat, gagged, and died.

The second man came in with berries. The chief gave him the same task. The second man swallowed two with ease, gagged on the third one, and died.

Now these two men were up in heaven. The first man asked the second, "Why did you gag? You had berries! You could have lived!"

The second guy replied, "Yeah, but I almost laughed when I saw the third man coming with pineapples!"

I Wish the Whole World Could See

"...I wish the whole World could see abortion the way this naive 17yr old saw abortion" - Jason Jones

Jones yesterday launched a new campaign, IAmWholeLife.com with spokesperson Eduardo Verastegui (from the movie Bella), responding to the anti-life sentiments of US politicians who are supporting the Health Care Bill. The bill, without the Stupak/Nelson language will lead to the largest expansion of abortion in the States since Roe vs. Wade.

hat tip: Jill Stanek

Health Care Bill Shaky as Abortion Amendment Defeated

Senator Ben Nelson, Nebraska

Democrat Senator Ben Nelson's amendment to remove Federal funding for abortions from the Health Care Bill was defeated with 54 votes against, 45 for in the Senate on Tuesday. However as Katie Connolly says, what will matter most is not Tuesday's Senate debate, but rather where the Nelson/Stupak language ends up in the reconciliation process. It was sponsor of the original bill, Bart Stupak who himself said, “I don’t think we will prevail in the Senate.”

Politico.com reports on Nelson's threat of filibustering if sufficient changes are not made to the bill when he said on 19 Nov that he would seek to prevent health reform from moving to final passage if restrictions on federal funding for abortion weren’t tightened during the amendment process. He added, “there are a lot of other things that could keep me from supporting it in the end as well.”

With 51% of US Citizens now declaring themselves to be pro-life in the recent Gallup poll, it is important that they now put pressure on their Senators to oppose the passing of the Bill unless significant alterations are made regarding the funding of abortions in health insurance policies, according to the language found in the Stupak/Nelson amendments. Because if the Bill does get through in its current state, health-insurance policies which contain federal funding for abortion coverage will be permitted to be sold. The jist of the Stupak/Nelson amendment to the bill then, is that abortion insurance would be permitted as a part of a complete health-insurance plan, but only if that plan did not receive partial funding through Medicare, the United States equivalent to ACC.

New Zealand currently has 100% tax-payer funded abortions for all citizens and permanent residents. This means that a portion of every taxed dollar Kiwis earn goes towards the 18,000 abortions committed in New Zealand every year. Let's hope that the US is able to avoid sinking down to this deplorable level of government endorsed and funded injustice, this silent holocaust.

I lol'd

Scrubone's posted a few good jokes recently, here's the best one...

One day an out of work actor named Tim is visiting the zoo and attempts to earn some money as a street performer.

Unfortunately, as soon as he starts to draw a crowd, a zoo keeper grabs him and drags him into his office. The zoo keeper explains to Tim that the zoo's most popular attraction, a gorilla has died suddenly and the keeper fears that attendance at the zoo will fall off. He offers the actor a job to dress up as the gorilla until they can get another one. Tim accepts.

So the next morning Tim puts on the gorilla suit and enters the cage before crowd comes. He discovers that its a great job. He can sleep all he wants, play and make fun of people and he draws bigger crowds than he ever did as an actor.

However, eventually the crowds tire of him and he tires of just swinging on tires. He begins to notice that the people are paying more attention to the lion in the cage next to his. Not wanting to lose the attention of his audience, he climbs to the top of his cage, crawls across a partition, and dangles from the top to the lions cage. Of course, this makes the lion furious, but the crowd loves it.

At the end of the day the zoo keeper comes and gives Tim a raise for being such a good attraction. Well, this goes on for some time, Tim keeps taunting the lion, the crowds grow larger, and his salary keeps going up.

Then one terrible day when he is dangling over the furious lion he slips and falls. Tim is terrified. The lion gathers itself and prepares to pounce. Tim is so scared that he begins to run round and round the cage with the lion close behind. Finally, he starts screaming and yelling, ‘Help, Help me!’, but the lion is quick and pounces.

The actor soon finds himself flat on his back looking up at the angry lion and the lion says, ‘Shut up you idiot! Do you want to get us both fired?’

Families Commission Seeking Increased Paid Leave for Dads

The Families Commission wants to extend paid parental leave to include four weeks for dads. Families Commissioner Gregory Fortuin defended the call for extended leave,

“Fathers think they could do an even better job if they could spend more time with their children. The main barrier to fathers sending time with their kids is work, which illustrates the need for flexible workplaces.”

Fortuin gets it right when he talks about the need for flexible workplaces and I couldn't agree more. But how the heck can you have flexible workplaces when you've got a myriad of levels of bureaucracy dictating to the employer and employee exactly what can and can't be done, and how to go about it, in intricate detail.

Maxim takes a shot at the their arch-nemesis,

While Dads spending time with their children is crucial, the policy is unaffordable and promotes the idea that we value something by putting a dollar figure on it is not a healthy attitude to parenting. Worse, they imply that parents should do what they'll get paid for.

Tripping employers up with more red tape will serve only to affect their productivity and ability to employ more staff. If hard-working business-dads are working over-time to keep their company going as a result of having fewer hours put in from their employees due to this paid-parental leave, then their children are going to suffer. Lets get rid of the Families Commission - all they are capable of doing is coming out with tired old socialist solutions to societal and family problems which run far too deep to be remedied with another few briefcases of tax-payers' money.

Teen Repeat Abortions Increasing in England

Abortion numbers in the UK are the highest in Europe with 219,336 terminations taking place in one year according to a new study. Britain also has the highest number of abortions for girls under 20 with 48,150 of the abortions falling into this age group... In February official figures revealed that 41.9 girls per 1,000 aged 15 to 17 became pregnant in 2007, compared with 40.9 in 2006. This comes following £300m ($690m NZ) having been spent to date on the Labour Government’s Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, with Phyllis Bowman of Right to Life commenting, “The Government is not so much running a Teenage Pregnancy Strategy as a Teenage Abortion Strategy; Conceptions are not going down and abortion is going up, exactly the reverse of what was supposed to happen” - The Christian Institute, 13 Nov 09.

Yesterday in England the Daily Mail reports that in 2008, 5,218 teenagers (girls up to the age of 20) had an abortion that was at least their second termination. This means that one in 20 of the teenagers who became pregnant ended it with their second or further abortion. For the first time women having repeat abortions made up more than a third of all those women having their pre-born child killed. Julie Bentley, chief executive of the Family Planning Association claimed, "These figures represent a tiny number of women," while Tony Kerridge from pro-abortion institution Marie Stopes International said the findings are proof that young people need "continuous and consistent sex education," and is in favour of compulsory sex-education for every child from a young age, The Guardian reports.

While advocates of abortion continue to claim that it is not being used as an alternative to contraception, it is abundantly clear from the increase in repeat abortions committed against teenage girls and their pre-born babies that firstly, the sex-education they're receiving in schools is not having it's desired effect, and secondly that abortion is very much promoted and used as an all-too-convenient alternative to other means of contraception. What is the solution? Should sex-education be taught by compulsion from a younger age (currently being taught from 5yrs in England), as Marie Stopes International is advocating for, or should the Government instead get out of family homes and leave the so-called essential sex-education to children's parents.

Pro-Life Training Workshop in New Zealand

Brendan Malone, Family Life International NZ

In New Zealand  more than 1 in 5 pregnancies ends in an abortion, with 18,000 being committed against our silent unborn citizens every year. For too many years the pro-life movement in New Zealand has been well under the radar with the past generation of pro-lifers burnt out, largely not having passed the baton on to the next generation - and where the baton was held out, the next generation didn't grasp it and keep going. Abortion has only been in the news when reporting on developments on an ongoing court-case (which you can read about here), or to report on international news. Over the last year the pro-life movement has been slowly gaining momentum with the establishment of a new nation-wide youth-based pro-life group, Prolife NZ. And then when the Voice for Life branch in a small town called Kapiti had the idea to host a pro-life training workshop, the ball really got rolling. The day before the workshop we held a protest march (the first anti-abortion march in I don't know how long), against the Family Planning Association (Planned Parenthood equivalent). The FPA corporation which is a "sex-education" provider has applied to the Abortion Supervisory Committee for a license to commit chemical (RU486) abortions against mothers and their pre-born children up to 9wks, at its 30 clinics throughout New Zealand. The march was well attended and photos are here.

Matt & Madeline Flannagan

The workshop was held on Sat. 28 November in a school hall with speakers and delegates from all around the country. Brian Whittaker opened the conference with some inspiring videos and then a presentation of Scott Klusendorf's SLED model which many were hearing for the first time and found very helpful. Bob McCoskrie of Family First (Focus on the Family equivalent) spoke to us about the importance of language in this battle and then on lessons we can learn from the other side of the debate on how best to engage the media and the public. Matt & Madeline Flannagan who were both active student campaigners against abortion in the early 2000's spoke to the audience firstly on getting our message right: are we campaigning against abortion because it harms women or because it kills pre-born children? They then covered more apologetics and common objections to the anti-abortion position. Matt did his PhD in Abortion as Arbitrary Feticide and their talk was extremely beneficial. Brendan Malone of Family Life International NZ spoke about the history of abortion law, and the way that our culture is embracing a self-centered humanistic approach to life which results in the unborn being cast aside as annoying and worthless. I was the last speaker, sharing reasons for getting involved in the pro-life movement and a bunch of practical ways people can actively be pro-life on a day to day basis.

a resources table with 12wk fetal models and pamphlets

With over 130 in attendance at the workshop and many of these youth, the organizers were very happy and are looking forward to next year. Of course that's not good enough for the young people, as next year is too far away and already on the email group plans are being set in motion for another conference early next year. It is encouraging to see this, as this has been initiated by a group in a city where previously there was little more than a stir against the injustice of abortion being committed there and throughout the rest of the country. Wherever you are based, I encourage you to meet up with some other pro-lifers, get a committee together, and get a pro-life workshop happening in a town or city near you. This cause isn't something like model-trains or a stamp-collectors club - this musn't be something that we do once a year, switch on the enthusiasm and activism for a couple of days and then switch off for the rest of the year. Even if you only have 20 or 30 turn up, you're going to be doing more good than you know by not only inspiring and convicting the next generation of the importance of their involvment, but also empowering them to know how they can get active in the fight for the right to life of the unborn. That handful of people are going to go back to their home-towns and start firing up the people around them and engaging them in the discussion about this greatest of all social injustices. The workshop in NZ has been a real encouragement for us here - and it is this sort of initiative that is at last going to bring the monster of abortion crashing down.

Planned Parenthood Scared at Abortion Amendment

Senator Ben Nelson

As the Health Care Bill in the US goes through the Senate, Senators Ben Nelson (Democrat) and Orrin Hatchis (Republican) are offering an amendment based largely on the Stupak amendment which was passed on the bill as it went through the House of Congress.

"My Senate amendment would ban any public funds from paying for abortions under a new health care reform bill" - TheHill.com

For regular updates on the progress of the Health Care Bill where it relates in particular to the abortion issue, keep an eye on Jill Stanek's blog.

Planned Parenthood is really, really upset and its president, Cecile Richards today emailed supporters, asking them to email their senators opposing the Nelson amendment.

Dear Supporter,

The Stupak abortion coverage ban that passed the House of Representatives last month is headed for the Senate right now - and we urgently need your help.

Republican Senator Orrin Hatch and Democratic Senator Ben Nelson are planning to introduce an amendment to the Senate health care reform bill that is virtually identical to the Stupak amendment. With both Republican and Democratic support for this damaging amendment, it is entirely possible that the resulting health care reform legislation will eliminate access to private health insurance coverage of abortion for millions of women.

Cecile Richards

This is incorrect as the Senate bill would actually allow women to buy plans that cover abortion even if they receive federal aid, however it would require insurers to segregate public and private funds and use only private money to pay for abortions. Any public option could offer abortion coverage, as long as federal money wasn't used. This would keep government funds from being used for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or to save a woman's life. - Omaha.com. Cecile uses the emotive term "millions", however it is very vague as no time-frame is given. With over 1.5 million abortions being committed in the US every year, it is impossible that "millions" of women would have access to private health insurance eliminated each year, so what is she talking about? More on this here.

We cannot let that happen. We must stop them, and we need your help. Please, send a message to your senators right now. Once you've sent your message, please don't stop there. As we saw during the vote in the House of Representatives, anti-choice groups will stop at nothing to influence the vote because their goal is to outlaw abortion, no questions asked. We can't afford to let up for even a moment. Everyone who cares about choice, health care, and women must speak up now.

"Anti-choice groups will stop at nothing" - that's right, we have no morals or principles and will sink to the lowest possible level in order to further our cause - at least that's what Cecile is saying. Apparently we want to outlaw abortion with no questions asked, however this is an unfair representation of the pro-life movement as a whole. A majority of pro-lifers accept that there are occasional cases where an abortion is the best solution to a complicated pregnancy.

Every day, uninsured women, men, and families visit Planned Parenthood health centers seeking care they can't get anywhere else, and they desperately need Congress to fix our broken system to ensure health care for all. However, eliminating choice for millions of women is a price we can't afford to pay for passing health reform.

Cecile is correct here. Planned Parenthood can't afford to pay the price of having fewer abortions being done in the US. Planned Parenthood commits approximately 1/5 of all abortions in the US (305,310 in 2007), and at $400 each that's at least $122 million in revenue from abortions alone each year. - InsideCatholic.com. For each abortion that does not take place, Planned Parenthood loses out - and they hate that. Especially with the Harvard Business School case study on Planned Parenthood showing that, they face "tough economic times, a hostile political environment, and limited ability to raise philanthropic dollars in a resource constrained area of the country".

The anti-choice Stupak ban in the House and now the proposed Hatch/Nelson ban in the Senate represent a huge step backward for women. If health care reform passes with this kind of amendment intact, it would be the most serious restriction of access to abortion coverage in a generation. I can't let that happen. I hope you can't, either.

Thank you for your action today to stop this aggressive attack on women's health and freedom. Together, we'll stop the U.S. Senate from caving to pressure from the far right. I'll keep you posted on what's next.

Again, there's that creative combination of words. Pro-lifers are aggressively attacking the very health of the women of America - awful! And, Cecile warns us, we must stop the Senate from caving to pressure from the far right! It's laughable. Removing state-funding for abortion insurance coverage is hardly an aggressive attack on women's health. And if the pro-lifers in the States backing this excellent amendment are the far right, then what do we call the National Front now?

Sincerely,

Cecile Richards, President
Planned Parenthood Federation of America

They're scared, and for good reason - Nelson holds a swing vote, and the bill has to pass through the Senate in some form. This pivotal law change has huge ramifications for the abortion industry in the States and will be very interesting to watch over the next few days.

I lol'd

A tourist is traveling with a guide through one of the thickest jungles in Latin America, when he comes across an ancient Mayan temple. The tourist is entranced by the temple and asks the guide for details. The guide states that archaeologists are carrying out excavations and are still finding great treasures. The tourist then queries how old the temple is.

"This temple is 2,503 years old," replies the guide.

Impressed at this accurate dating, he asks how he knew this precise figure.

"Easy," replies the guide. "The archaeologists said the temple was 2,500 years old, and that was three years ago."