Tuesday, February 28, 2006

US Supreme Court Gives Unanimous Victory to Pro-Life Protesters
Schiedler/Operation Rescue Vindicated

Washington, DC - Feb 28, 2006 The United States Supreme Court issued an unanimous ruling today finally clearing pro-life protesters of a 20-year old suit brought by NOW under the Federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) laws. Joseph Scheidler, a long- time pro-life activist from Chicago, took the lead in defending the case on behalf of over 20 defendants, including Operation Rescue.

In an historic third trip to the nation’s highest court, Justice Stephen Breyer issued the unanimous opinion clearly stating that the case is over and that pro- lifers may not be sued under RICO. This decision also puts an end to a nationwide injunction against the protesters.
“We are very excited to finally see this case put behind us once and for all,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “This is a victory not only for pro-lifers, who can now exercise their First Amendment rights to speak out about abortion without fear of a RICO suit, but it is also a victory for the women and babies who are entering our nation’s abortion mills, who now will have greater access to more information and practical assistance that can help them spare the lives of their pre-born children.”

“This is a victory that is a long time in coming, but whose arrival was never in doubt,” said Rev. Patrick Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition. “Every American owes Joe Scheidler a debt of gratitude for fighting this battle over two decades to preserve freedoms for all Americans.”

Operation Rescue
Troy Newman


phone: 316-841-1700

Operation Rescue
Cheryl Sullneger

Outreach Coordinator

phone: 316-516-3034
BRIAN ROHRBOUGH'S March for Life speech
inspires others!!

Death for rapists, not their unborn children - Denver Post Letters February 28, 2006

South Dakota passed a bill to end abortions that doesn't include an exemption for cases of rape. That bothers some people. Their thinking, as told in an Associated Press article, is that if a rape victim becomes pregnant and bears a child, the rapist could have the same parental rights as the mother.

The idea that, to prevent a living rapist from being a father of a living child, some think it best to let the rapist live and to kill the child, instead of the other way around, is incredibly moronic.

Obviously, one better solution is to add convicted rapists to the list of those eligible for the death penalty. That would forever rid the child and all of society of a rapist in our lives. Another can be addressed by the legislature and/or the courts wherein rapists have no parental rights whatsoever over any child conceived during a rape.

The fact is that we don't have to think that the only solution is to kill the rapist's children, whether born or unborn, when other solutions are available.

Robert E. Forman, Lakewood

Wednesday, February 22, 2006


Originally uploaded by lesforlife.
KATE ADAMSON, (katesjourney.org) Senator
Doug Lamborn, Colorado Right to Life President, Diane Hochevar and Leslie Hanks
at SB 158 committee hearing on nutrition/hydration.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006


Don't miss the link to lifecommercials.com

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Barbequed sacred cows
Posted: February 15, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jill Stanek

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Chicago is no longer my kind of town. It's a liberal Democrat kind of town. It's a town with a gay and lesbian center – funded by taxpayers. It's a town that aborts over 20,000 of its residents a year. It's Jesse Jackson's home town. It's a town where Republicans meet in catacombs. It's a town where even Catholic priests vote 4-to-1 Democrat.

So imagine my surprise when last week the overpowered Cook County Republican Party issued a press release accusing Democrat tyrants of abusing their most prized possession, African Americans.

In conjunction with Black History Month, the Chicago GOP wrote a profound pro-life editorial blaming the Democrat "pro-slavery" Party of "black genocide" because of its pro-abortion position:

One of the most infamous cases ever decided by a Democrat-controlled court was the Dred Scott case ... The result of Dred Scott was to strip African Americans of their standing under the law and thereby prevent them from ever exercising political power for the good of their people. Roe v. Wade subtly accomplishes the same ends by a different means.

The black population is curbed by convincing black mothers that their unborn children are only property which will financially destroy them, so it is in their interests and the interests of society to kill them. African Americans can thank the Democratic Party and its unyielding support for Roe v. Wade ... for today's veritable black genocide. Today's Democrats continue to advocate a society in which certain people are stripped of their humanity and denied political power.

Score a major hit for the GOP.

I don't know what got into those scrappy Republicans, but they weren't finished. They next took aim at Planned Parenthood:

Recent statistics indicate that since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent. Because abortion has been aggressively peddled to innercity black communities, black babies today are three times more likely to be killed in the womb than white babies. Abortion kills twice as many black babies as AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer and heart disease combined. Although it is possible that Planned Parenthood and its ilk are racially blind, 80 percent of Planned Parenthood facilities are located in minority neighborhoods.

Score a second major hit for the Republicans. Chicago's Planned Parenthood isn't accustomed to attacks. As the Democrat Party's very public mistress, Planned Parenthood is considered untouchable.

I blogged on the Cook County Republican Party's brave effort to bring the truth about the racist agenda of Democrats and Planned Parenthood to African Americans.

I linked in my blog post to an ad by LifeCommercials.com titled, "Why?" This ad exposes the eugenic agenda of Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger. I isolated one of Sanger's quotes from the ad as an illustration for my post: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population ..."

One place I blog is Illinoize, a gathering hole of political bloggers in the Land Formerly of Lincoln. Illinoize is inhabited predominantly by liberals. I didn't quite fathom before I blogged how sacred are the Democrat Party and Planned Parenthood cows to liberals. But here is one sample of 139 mostly furious comments I received:

Jill Stanek is an animal. Absolutely an animal, and the Cook County GOP, the most irrelevant political organization in the country, is disgusting, and whatever hack consulting firm they're using for this ... are (sic) hate-mongering punks. Margaret Sanger said those words but, of course, meant the exact opposite – she was quoting a concern.

Stanek, you are a misleader, a liar, intellectually dishonest, a queen of the facile analogy, and best of all politically and socially irrelevant. Pathetic. This is absolutely disgusting, and you deserve this type of vitriol, because that is the kind of hate and vitriol you're putting out into the world.

And you thought I was exaggerating about those sacred cows.

Meanwhile, just as Indians revere their untouchable sacred cows while people lay dying in ignorance all around them, so do African Americans continue to revere their two sacred cows.

But I have hope.

Historically speaking, cows don't fare well in Chicago. It was a cow, after all, that kicked over Mrs. O'Leary's lantern and started the Great Chicago Fire.

It's only a matter of time before history repeats, and these two cows torch themselves due to their abortion obsession.

Jill Stanek fought to stop "live-birth abortion" after witnessing one as a registered nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. 2002, President Bush asked Jill to attend his signing of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. In January 2003, World Magazine named Jill one of the 30 most prominent pro-life leaders of the past 30 years. To learn more, visit Jill's blog, Pro-life Pulse.
FEBRUARY 16, 2005

My name is Bobby Schindler. My sister was Terri Schiavo.

On March 31st of 2005, Terri died of starvation and thirst after having her feeding tube removed by court order on the hearsay testimony of her husband, Michael.

My sister lived in a neurologically compromised state for reasons that are still unknown and my family wanted nothing from anyone but to be granted the permission to care for Terri for the span of her natural life. We were denied.

Terri tenaciously fought for her life for more than 13 days after being deprived of the most basic, natural and constant need that we all share – the need for nourishment – food and water. Terri was not on a respirator, not terminally ill, not dying and not succumbing to any killer disease. She was disabled. She was dependent on others. But, she was still very much a life, a woman and a person.

Throughout the entire history of mankind, never was it held that food and water constituted “medical care”. Our nation now claims food and water to be “medical treatment” instead of ordinary care, to facilitate their removal from persons deemed by the medical industry or the courts as “unworthy of life” primarily for economic reasons. Persons like Terri, with injuries and disabilities, are seen as not being worthy of life, not worth the investment.

It is beyond comprehension that we are seeing a culture of death impose its will upon society’s weakest and most vulnerable members. Every human being is endowed by his or her Creator with inestimable worth. Therefore no human being or agency has the authority to pronounce an innocent person such as my sister as “unworthy of life.”

We, as a society, are standing on a cliff with two clear and utterly polarized choices that we can make: Either we value each other – in spite of disability, or we despise each other based on those limitations.

I urge those in leadership to afford the protections to all weak and vulnerable people which were denied to my sister Terri.

Wednesday, February 01, 2006


Where are Tookie's supporters now?

I have a question for the hordes of bleeding-heart Hollywood stars who joined the "Save Tookie" brigade, bowed their heads in prayer with ex-Crip gangster Snoop Dogg and the Rev. Jesse Jackson and pleaded to save the life of convicted murderer Stanley "Tookie" Williams, and who lobbied so hard for the government to err on the side of life.

Where are you now?

In Boston, an innocent girl was sentenced to death by the state. Her name is Haleigh Poutre. Last fall, she was hospitalized after her stepfather allegedly burned her and beat her unconscious with a baseball bat. Haleigh was kept alive by a feeding tube and ventilator. Doctors said she was "virtually brain dead." They said she was in a "persistent vegetative state." The medical professionals pronounced her "hopeless."

Less than three weeks after Haleigh's hospitalization, the Massachusetts Department of Social Services was raring to remove Haleigh's feeding and breathing tubes. Even her biological mother (deemed unfit to care for Haleigh and whose former boyfriend was accused of sexually abusing the child) wanted her put to death. The only person who wanted Haleigh alive was her stepfather, who will likely be charged with murder if Haleigh dies.

Insane decision

Earlier this month, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in favor of killing Haleigh, saying it was "unthinkable" to give the power to make a life-and-death decision to the man accused of putting Haleigh in a coma. Instead, the court did something just as unthinkable: It handed that power to the same child welfare agency that had failed time and time again to protect Haleigh.

According to the Boston Herald, a report by her court-appointed guardian showed that the Massachusetts Department of Social Services had received 17 reports of abuse or neglect involving Haleigh in the three years before her adoptive mother and stepfather were charged with pummeling her into a coma.

"State can let beaten girl die," the headlines trumpeted. But there was just one small complication for all of those who, for whatever reason, were in such a rush to let Haleigh die:

Haleigh is fighting to live.

As state officials prepared to remove Haleigh's life support, she began breathing on her own, responding to stimuli and showing signs of emerging from what doctors had deemed a hopeless condition. Everyone had given up on Haleigh -- except Haleigh.

Unbelievably, the state had weaned Haleigh off her breathing tube before the state Supreme Court ruled -- but the government failed to inform the court of this. Haleigh's medical records and the social service agency's brief remain sealed.

Politicians in Massachusetts are vowing full-scale investigations of the state's incompetent child welfare bureaucrats. But where's the accountability for the medical experts whose faulty diagnosis led to Haleigh's court-approved death sentence? Will they step forward and reveal themselves? Will they explain how they erred? Will they apologize?

It was the "experts'" unequivocal assessments that led the court to declare Haleigh in "an irreversible vegetative state" and to assert "the child could not see, hear, feel or respond." Now, they admit they were wrong. And Haleigh's life depends on the whims of a hopeless agency that didn't think the court needed to know she was breathing on her own.

Wake up

Haleigh's story is a wake-up call to "right-to-die" ideologues who recklessly put such unlimited trust in the medical profession and the nanny state. With such uncertainty surrounding persistent vegetative state diagnoses, the presumption must be in favor of life. Yet, the "right-to-die" lobby's mantra seems to be: When in doubt, pull it out.

While Haleigh clings to life, I've pondered how we might help persuade the plug-pullers to put off the child's state-sanctioned death sentence. I propose nominating her for a Nobel Prize. It bought Williams five extra years.

Jamie Foxx and Susan Sarandon, will you join me?

The writer is a syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. She is a 1988 graduate of Holy Spirit High School in Absecon. Contact her at malkin@comcast.net.
Published: January 29. 2006 3:00AM

Dear Ms. Young,

I'm writing in response to your column, “Haleigh Poutre is no Terri Schiavo”.

After reading all of the dishonesty that you purport as truths in regard to my sister Terri, I have to say that this is not only the most irresponsible article that I have yet to read from the media regarding Terri’s situation, but possibly the most egregious.

You wrote that, “Schiavo had been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years, and had undergone a barrage of tests showing that she had no higher brain functioning and no consciousness – a fact on which all unbiased medical experts agreed.”

I want to know how you’ve researched Terri’s case, and how you’ve obtained this information. Could it be that you’ve gathered your ‘facts’ from the other opinion pieces similar to the one you’ve written about Terri?

If you are referring to autopsy that ostensibly proved that Terri was PVS, then you are entirely wrong.  The Independent Medical Examiner who performed the autopsy, Dr. Jon Thogmartin, went to great lengths to caution those reviewing Terri’s autopsy that a post-mortem, forensic examination could neither confirm nor refute a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state.  This is because PVS is a clinical diagnosis based on the behaviors of a living patient and not forensic pathology.

Moreover, Dr. Stephen Nelson – a consulting pathologist who assisted Dr. Thogmartin with the autopsy report – admitted that, while Terri’s symptoms were consistent with PVS, he could not rule out the possibility that Terri was in a minimally conscious state.

And there are numerous pathologists and physicians that have responded to the autopsy finding as being misleading and ambiguous.  This information could have been and still can be easily provided to you.

I wonder if you were you aware that – as indicated in Terri’s medical records – she was talking when given rehabilitation in the months following her injury?  This completely refutes the PVS diagnosis.

Additionally, did you know that there were more doctors on record with the court (from some of the most distinguished institutions from across the country) stating that Terri was not in PVS than there were doctors that said she was?  Furthermore, most of these affidavits (there are more than 42 in total) submitted by these doctors said that if Terri was given proper therapy, her functioning capacity could have improved.  Why was this never reported by the media?

Did you know that a recent British Medical Journal has reported that nearly 43% of all PVS diagnoses are, in fact, misdiagnoses?   Based on this report, the Independent Medical Examiner findings, the sworn testimony and affidavits of over 42 physicians, neurologists and other healthcare professionals contradicting that Terri was in PVS, I believe it is incredibly reckless for you to make the sweeping statement that Terri was PVS.

The fact that my sister received no therapy for more than thirteen years, which also was rarely if ever reported by the media, only added to the deterioration of her condition. No autopsy report could have ever determined how much Terri would have improved if she was receiving proper rehabilitation and therapy during the past thirteen years.

To make the statement that, “. . . all unbiased medical experts agreed” as to the condition of my sister is so completely disingenuous that the only conclusion I can draw is that you did absolutely no research into the doctors that evaluated Terri.

Dr. Ronald Cranford, hired by Michael Schiavo, has testified in almost every major case that the removal of the feeding tube should be permitted.  He even takes pleasure in the moniker, Dr. Humane Death.  To call him ‘unbiased’ is like calling Rush Limbaugh a liberal democrat.  And one of the other doctors that testified in my sister trial, Dr. Peter Bambakidis, was later discovered as having ties to same organization as Michael Schiavo’s attorney George Felos.

But aside from all this, what is really sad is that your article and so many others like yours does nothing but discriminate against the disabled by labeling them with this dangerous and subjective PVS diagnosis.  The PVS diagnosis was created for one reason and to serve only one purpose – to kill those that are the weakest and most vulnerable among us.

No amount of damage to the brain or level of disability should give anyone the authority to kill.  But this is exactly what you are saying - and is now happening all the time - that we can justify the killing of human beings because they have reached a level of profound brain damage that is unacceptable for us to care for them anymore.  So, tell me, how long do you give Haliegh to improve before you give up on her and decide that she must die?

What is really shameful though is that I have to respond to articles like yours and defend my sister’s life and explain why her family should have been permitted to love her.

Columnist Nat Hentoff commented on the media and how they have handled my sister’s case.  He said that it was so shoddy and inaccurate that it was the worst case of ‘journalistic malpractice’ that he’s seen in 25 years.

It continues.

Bobby Schindler