Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Pro-Life Infonet Weekly 12/31/00

Expand Messages
  • right2life@aol.com
    This Week s Headlines No Child Should go Un-dopted Feminists for Life Honors Remarkable Pro-Life Women British Government Orders the Slaughter of Innocents
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      This Week's Headlines

      No Child Should go "Un-dopted"
      Feminists for Life Honors Remarkable Pro-Life Women
      British Government Orders the Slaughter of Innocents
      Using Ultrasound to Combat Abortion
      If Americans Really Support Abortion, Let's Vote

      --------------------
      From: The Pro-Life Infonet Weekly <infonet@...>
      Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@...>
      Subject: No Child Should go "Un-dopted"
      Source: USA Today; December 22, 2000

      No Child Should go "Un-dopted"

      Dave Thomas and Denise Fitzgerald are kindred souls. Thomas is the founder
      of Wendy's, the fast food chain.

      In 1992, he used the celebrity he earned hawking hamburgers and chili to
      establish a foundation that helps find parents for children in need of
      adoption. That same year Fitzgerald, an unmarried federal employee,
      adopted a 4-month-old boy.

      Her inspiration came from an aunt who had taken an unwantedchild into her
      home many years earlier.

      "I always wanted to do this,'' said Fitzgerald, who was 39 when she took
      custody of her son. "I just wanted to reach out and share my blessings
      witha child in need of a home and a loving parent.''

      Fitzgerald didn't know anything about Thomas' foundation until a few days
      ago when she watched "A Home for the Holidays," a CBS special that mixed
      performances by top musical acts with heartwarming stories about adoption.

      Two days later, Thomas was back on the small screen, this time as the
      driving force behind the Wendy's Three-Tour Championship, a golf
      tournament that benefits his foundation.

      The thing that connects Thomas and Fitzgerald is their embrace of those
      children who run the greatest risk of languishing in foster care -- which
      for many youngsters becomes a nomadic route to adulthood. Of the more
      than100,000 children in this country who are available for adoption, more
      than half fall into the difficult-to-place category. They are older kids,
      siblings who want to be adopted together, children of color and those who
      are physically or mentally disabled.

      Finding homes for these youngsters ought to be a national imperative.

      In these fractious political times when abortion is the demarcation line
      between the ideological left and right, adoption is an issue on which
      Democrats and Republicans ought to be able to find common ground.

      Some of the world's most famous people were adopted.

      Scott Hamilton, the figure skater; country singing star Faith Hill; Tom
      Monaghan, founder of Domino's Pizza; Hall of Fame baseball pitcher Jim
      Palmer; and TV personality Art Linkletter were all adopted.

      But while the battle over abortion has raged in the past decade, the
      number of children adopted each year in this country during the 1990s
      remained

      static. This is despite the fact that six out of 10 Americans were touched
      by adoption: either they, a family member or a close friend was adopted,
      hadadopted a child or had placed a child for adoption, according to the
      Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute.

      Instead of offering a home to hard-to-place children at home, a growing

      number of Americans are going abroad to adopt. Foreign adoptions increased
      from 6,536 in 1992 to 13,620 in 1997, according to the National Adoption
      Information Clearinghouse. While these numbers constitute a relatively
      small percentage of the adoptions made by people in this country, the
      surge inoverseas adoptions suggests an ominous trend.

      If domestic adoptions remain flat and the rate of foreign adoptions
      spiralsupward, there's little chance that the ranks of U.S. children who
      now gowanting for adoptive parents will be slashed sharply.

      "Do I get tired sometimes?'' Fitzgerald asked rhetorically of her decision
      to adopt a child. ''Yes, but I wouldn't trade this experience for anything
      inthe world.''

      Unfortunately her decision and the targeted efforts of Thomas' foundation
      haven't inspired a significant reduction in the number of children
      available for adoption. That's bad news for abortion opponents. The
      campaign against abortions has little real hope of succeeding as long as
      large numbers of children in this country are passed over for adoption.

      Many women who struggle with the choice of giving birth to a ''special
      needs'' baby or having an abortion will opt for the latter if they know

      adoption is not a viable option for their child. But, of course, you don't
      have to be an abortion opponent to praise Fitzgerald or champion Thomas'
      good work. Every right-thinking American should rally in support of them
      -- and the idea that no child should beconsidered unadoptable.

      You can help women choose adoption over abortion with a link on your web
      site to Pregnancy Centers online at http://www.pregnancycenters.org

      ---
      Please support the Pro-Life Infonet Weekly with a donation to: Women and
      Children First, PO Box 4433, Helena, MT 59604-4433


      --------------------
      From: The Pro-Life Infonet Weekly <infonet@...>
      Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@...>
      Subject: Feminists for Life Honors Remarkable Pro-Life Women
      Source: Feminists for Life Press Release; December 27, 2000

      Feminists for Life Honors Remarkable Pro-Life Women

      Washington, DC (ProLifeInfo.org) -- "Feminists for Life is pleased to
      announce this year's 'Remarkable Pro-Life Women,' featured in the Winter
      issue of The American Feminist," said Serrin M. Foster, Feminists for Life
      President. "It was hard to choose among the notable women from various
      walks of life."

      FFL's Honorary Chair, Patricia Heaton, who recently received an Emmy for
      Best Actress, is honored along with fellow activists and actors Margaret
      Colin ("Madigan Men") and Kate Mulgrew ("Star Trek Voyager"). Mulgrew
      shares her personal story of placing her daughter for adoption and
      recently being united.

      Former Philippine president Corazon Aquino, Member of European Parliament
      Dana Rosemary Scallon and state representatives Pat Lockwood and Mary
      Ellen Otremba are honored as well as journalists Michelle Malkin and Norah
      Vincent. Other honorees include Professor Sidney Callahan, Ph.D.,
      disability activist Mary Jane Owen, Rebecca Wasser Kiessling, who was
      conceived through sexual assault and Marion Syversen, who shares the story
      of her two abortions, miscarriage and domestic violence.

      Past honorees include Irish President Mary McAleese, Pakastani Prime
      Minister Benazir Bhutto, Ambassador Lindy Boggs, Mother Teresa, Eunice
      Kennedy Shriver, professors Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard University and
      feminist historian Elizabeth Fox Genovese, columnist Linda Chavez, former
      corporate CEO and founder of The Nurturing Network Mary Cunningham Agee
      and Dr. Pamela Smith.

      "Young women today have so many role models to look up to women who
      celebrate our capacity to give life," said Foster. "The good news is that
      they are everywhere."

      For a copy of the "Remarkable Pro-Life Women II" issue of The American
      Feminist, please call FFL at 202-737-3352.

      --
      Find pro-life books on abortion and euthanasia
      http://www.roevwade.org/books.html


      --------------------
      From: The Pro-Life Infonet Weekly <infonet@...>
      Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@...>
      Subject: British Government Orders the Slaughter of Innocents
      Source: Article by Dr. David Reardon; December 27, 2000

      British Government Orders the Slaughter of Innocents
      by David C. Reardon, Ph.D.

      [Moderator's Note: Dr. Reardon is an author, biomedical ethicist, and
      director of the Elliot Institute.]

      Destructive experimentation on human embryos, and even well-developed
      human fetuses, is now widely practiced in many of the world's most
      technologically developed (and spiritually senile) nations.

      Until now, most governments have simply turned a blind eye to the
      deliberate killing of embryonic human beings.

      Until now, the embryonic children created by in vitro fertilization were
      created with the intent that at least some would survive to maturity. Each
      new life began with at least some chance (about two percent, on average)
      that he or she would selected for implantation and survive to birth. It
      was only the "excess" or "defective" who were selected to die for the sake
      of advancing scientific knowledge about embryonic human life.

      But on December 19, 2000, the world slid down another section of the
      slippery slope of our own dehumanization. On that day, at the behest of
      Prime Minister Tony Blair, the British Parliament passed legislation to
      allow the cloning of human beings under the strict provision that ALL of
      these cloned human beings MUST be killed.

      This law moves the British government away from being a passive observer
      of the killing of innocent unborn children into being a direct regulator
      of the killings. Under the new law, human lives may be created using
      cloning technology only when the creators agree, under threat of the law,
      to destroy the embryonic child.

      Through this "compromise" legislation, which forbids the carrying to term
      of cloned children, the government hopes to clear the path for British
      scientists to be at the forefront of research into eugenic human
      engineering.
      In fact, this compromise is a condition that eugenicists gladly embraceat
      least for the time being.

      These government ordered killings are being disguised as regulations for
      "therapeutic cloning." But exactly for whom is this scientific research
      "therapeutic?" Not for the cloned human embryo. Not for the donor of the
      genes that are cloned. Not for anyone. No, the word "therapeutic" is
      simply being attached to this dead-end cloning to suggest that this
      research has some imminent medical value.

      Furthermore, it is most notable that these experiments will contribute
      little or nothing to our understanding of basic biology that could not be
      learned equally as well from the use of animal tissues. But, then,
      experiments in human cloning are not really about advancing science at
      all, though they are being defended under that guise.

      The real goal behind the push for human cloning is to further desensitize
      the public to the manipulation and destruction of human embryos. This is
      an important step in the eugenicists' march toward establishing complete
      "quality control" over human procreation. It is another step, in science
      and in the law, toward the annihilation of that old Judeo-Christian ethic
      which regards all human life as sacred.

      In passing its "therapeutic cloning" law, the British Parliament has
      clearly rejected the old ethic and is standing squarely on the side of the
      eugenicists' "new ethic." According to this new ethic, human life is
      simply "complex biological matter" that can be manipulatedand discardedat
      will. It is an ethic that inevitably leads to a totalitarian mentality
      that seeks to create a utopian "Brave New World" by controlling who is
      allowed to be born into the world and how quickly the sick and "unfit" are
      targeted to leave the world.

      Do not underestimate the historical importance of this event. In clearing
      the path for human cloning, the British government has clearly become an
      advocate of the new ethic built on the premise of defining ourselves as
      unsacred human animals.

      Furthermore, in creating the mandate that all human clones shall be used
      only for experimental purposes that must end in their destruction, the
      British government has established a new precedent for human segregation.

      Under British law, genetically engineered human beings do not have the
      same rights and protections as other human beings. This will be an
      important precedent as eugenicists begin to pursue the recommendations of
      Joseph Fletcher, among others, regarding the creation of human-animal
      hybrids and brainless organ donors.

      G. K. Chesterton, the British wit who was always a thorn in the side of
      the early eugenics movement, once quipped: "Morality is like art.
      Somewhere you need to draw a line."

      Chesterton saw to the heart of the matter. In the last fifty years, in
      vitro fertilization, contraception, abortion, mercy killing, managed
      health care, and genetic engineering have all blurred the boundaries that
      once defined society's understanding of procreation and death. Now, with
      the acceptance of "therapeutic cloning," another line defending a sacred
      view of human life is being erased. Soon, nothing will stand in the way
      of the eugenicists' new ethic.

      But there is still hope. The old ethic, the view that life is sacred, is
      still held by the vast majority of "normal" folk. It is long past time
      for those who believe in the sacredness of life to speak up, to act, and
      to vigorously resist the advances of this new ethic.

      May God save us all. The eugenicists won't; they will only save the
      "best."

      --
      Do you use online transactions? Sign up for PayPal, the best online
      transaction place on the Internet and raise $5 for pro-life work at no
      cost to you! Sign up (and get $5!!) at
      https://secure.paypal.com/affil/pal=donation%40prolifeinfo.org


      --------------------
      From: The Pro-Life Infonet Weekly <infonet@...>
      Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@...>
      Subject: Using Ultrasound to Combat Abortion
      Source: Washington Times; December 27, 2000

      Using Ultrasound to Combat Abortion
      by Michelle Malkin

      My daughter turned 6 months old last week. Veronica loves to roll across
      the living room, and drink from her sippy cup, and splash in the bathtub,
      and laugh at Daddy's fish lip faces, and yank really, really hard on
      Mommy's hair. She kicks and squeals and wails and gurgles and bounces and
      greets us each morning with a smile that could melt Antarctica.

      Looking back at photographs from the past half-year, we are astounded at
      how fast she has grown. First week home, first nap in her crib, first
      Halloween, first solid food, first Christmas -- the Kodak moments seem to
      multiply exponentially.

      But perhaps the most priceless pictures we will ever have of our firstborn
      child are the ones that were taken before she was born: black- and-white
      sonograms with close-ups of tiny knees and elbows, two curled feet, a
      waving hand, and a beating heart.

      For almost three decades, ultrasound technology has provided parents with
      a miraculous window to the womb. This common diagnostic technique uses
      harmless sound waves, sent by a hand-held transducer rubbed over the
      mother's belly, which bounce off the developing unborn child. Echoes from
      the waves are converted into sonograms, which can be seen on video and
      captured in print. The latest advances produce amazing three- dimensional
      views.

      Ultrasound is an innovation that not only affirms life, but also saves
      lives. Those who believe in protecting the unborn can do more good, more
      immediately by helping to spread this technology across the country than
      by counting on fair-weather politicians in Washington.

      Crisis pregnancy centers, armed with ultrasound machines donated by the
      non-profit National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, have convinced
      an untold number of parents to say no to abortion. NIFLA's "Life Choice
      Project" empowers the centers with legal advice, technical support, and
      all the equipment and training necessary to be converted into medical
      centers that can perform ultrasounds.

      Anecdotal evidence of ultrasound's persuasive powers has been steadily
      accumulating since 1983, when two government researchers published an
      article in the New England Journal of Medicine on pregnant women who
      underwent ultrasound tests while considering abortions.

      Viewing their unborn children early in pregnancy, before movement is felt
      by the mothers, may "influence the resolution of any ambivalence toward
      the pregnancy itself in favor of the fetus," wrote Drs. John C.
      Fletcher, then of the National Institutes of Health, and Mark I. Evans,
      then of George Washington University Medical School. "Ultrasound
      examination may thus result in fewer abortions and more desired
      pregnancies."

      Fletcher and Evans wrote that one woman who had been beaten early in
      pregnancy was given the test to see whether her child had been injured in
      the womb. When she saw the image of her child moving on the screen, she
      said: "I feel that it is human. It belongs to me. I couldn't have an
      abortion now." Another woman, 10 weeks pregnant, said after her ultrasound
      exam: "I am going all the way with the baby."

      Pregnancy centers from Joplin, Mo., to Denver, Co., report that many women
      and their partners leaning toward abortion change their minds after
      ultrasound exams. Dorothy Wallis of the Care Pregnancy Clinic in Baton
      Rouge, La., reports that 98 percent of women who have ultrasounds choose
      to carry to term.

      NIFLA president Thomas Glessner told me before the holidays that his
      group's goal is to equip one-third of the nation's pregnancy centers with
      ultrasound machines and trained staff. Imagine someday being able to
      prevent as many abortions as occur in this country -- an estimated 1.5
      million per year. "I believe it can happen," he said. But not without
      help. The program costs tens of thousands of dollars per center.
      Tax-deductible donations can be made on the Internet (www.nifla.org) or by
      sending checks to NIFLA/The Life Choices Project, P.O. Box 42060,
      Fredericksburg, VA 22404.

      If you are a parent or grandparent who has been moved to tears of joy by
      ultrasound -- I know you are out there and I know you are legion -- make
      it a New Year's resolution to join this life-saving crusade.

      --
      You can help the work of crisis pregnancy centers with a link on your web
      site to Pregnancy Centers Online at http://www.pregnancycenters.org


      --------------------
      From: The Pro-Life Infonet Weekly <infonet@...>
      Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@...>
      Subject: If Americans Really Support Abortion, Let's Vote
      Source: Op-ed by Ann Coulter; Jewish World Review, December 28, 2000

      If Americans Really Support Abortion, Let's Vote
      by Ann Coulter

      [Moderator's Note: Ann coulter is a nationally syndiated columnist.]

      It's nice to see that the feminist organizations have gotten their voices
      back after several years of radio silence during the Monica Lewinsky
      scandal. Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of
      America, recently opined on the op-ed page of The New York Times that she
      is "frightened" George W. Bush will pay heed to the "partisan" interests
      of those who disagree with Gloria.

      Liberals are always frightened by diversity of opinion. They think a fair
      way to decide passionately contested issues is for the federal government
      to issue uncompromising edicts giving liberals everything they want, and
      then to suppress all criticism of the edicts. The fascistic order,
      completely supplanting all democratic processes, is then known as a
      victory for "choice." As the Grand Inquisitor said in "The Brothers
      Karamazov": "They have vanquished freedom and have done so to make
      menhappy."

      That's what the Supreme Court did in Roe vs. Wade, and has repeatedly done
      in periodic codicils to its original edict. Just this past term, in
      Stenberg vs. Carhart, the court expanded the apocryphal abortion right to
      an all-new right to stick a fork in the head of a half-born baby. The
      first lunacy keeps being rewritten to give abortion enthusiasts everything
      they could possibly want.

      Not only can't Americans of differing views vote on the fiat, they can't
      even protest it. Feldt demanded "vigorous enforcement of the Freedom of
      Access to Clinic Entrances Act" -- in order for Bush to show "respect for
      differences," mind you.

      Among the absurd consequences of this Orwellian state is that the
      proponents of the fascistic decree compulsively argue that vast majorities
      of Americans support the abortion fiat we're not allowed to vote on. But
      at the same time they demand that Americans never be allowed to vote on
      it. Never, never, never! "Choice" is under attack if Roe is repealed and
      we get to vote. Democracy is "frightening."

      Ms. Feldt, for example, rambles on at some length about how much Americans
      adore the "right" to abortion. If this were true, she wouldn'thave to say
      it. No one goes around insisting that vast majorities of Americans oppose
      monarchy. But Feldt argues the past presidential election demonstrated a
      "decisive voter preference" for abortion, since both Al Gore and Ralph
      Nader (both of whom lost, incidentally) were pro-abortion.

      Using Gloria's logic -- typical when it comes to all abortion-related
      topics -- Al Gore, Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan and George Bush are all
      white men, which shows a "decisive voter preference" for white men. Among
      them, they got 100 percent of the vote, so I don't even know why Gloria is
      polluting intellectual commerce with her womanly chatter.

      Except white maleness wasn't what the voters were voting on, any more than
      abortion was. Though she goes on to invoke the liberal's favorite debating
      ploy -- a poll! -- if Gloria and her ilk were so cocksure that Americans
      shared their enthusiasm for abortion, they would demand the repeal of Roe
      so they could prove it in the polling booth.

      There are, of course, some things Americans aren't allowed to vote on --
      such as whether to have a king. The Constitution is a short document
      setting forth a particular governmental structure -- a president, a
      bicameral legislature, a judiciary, and very, very limited powers vested
      in any of these branches of the federal government.

      Among those powers, there is nothing about the Supreme Court or any
      federal bureaucrat setting abortion policy for the nation. There is
      nothing vaguely related to abortion whatsoever. You can read it yourself.

      Merely to state the logic of the "privacy right" concocted in Roe is to
      expose its inanity. Writing for the majority, Justice Harry Blackmun
      conceded that the "Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of
      privacy," but then he babbled on about the court or "individual justices"
      having "found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment; in
      the Fourth and Fifth Amendments; in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights,
      in the Ninth Amendment or in the concept of liberty ..."

      Any "right" that is that hard to pin down is a hoax. Still, from a
      "concept of liberty," and vaguely alluded-to "zones of privacy," abortion
      enthusiasts won a right to kill babies without the mess and bother of
      passing a law.

      The abortion cases are a direct assault on the most basic "choice"
      citizens are allowed in a democracy -- the right to vote. Not the right to
      have your improperly punched ballot recounted 17 times in a bald attempt
      to throw an election, but simply to have a say about a pressing moral
      issue committed to the states by the Constitution.

      Ms. Feldt drones on about "respecting differences" and finding "common
      ground" -- all in defense of an indefensible edict that stripped all
      Americans of the right to determine their own destinies by voting for the
      laws they want. Repeal Roe and let's vote.

      --
      Please feel free to pass on the Pro-Life Infonet Weekly to pro-life
      friends and family. For more pro-life information, see
      http://www.prolifeinfo.org or http://www.roevwade.org
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.